| Revision as of 22:13, 6 February 2007 editNatl1 (talk | contribs)Rollbackers6,185 edits →[]: Keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:11, 7 February 2007 edit undoDhaluza (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,564 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| *'''Keep''' Article is only a couple days old. Talk says they are working on it. Assume good faith. Looks like it may enough enough media coverage to pass ] under general criteria.--] 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Article is only a couple days old. Talk says they are working on it. Assume good faith. Looks like it may enough enough media coverage to pass ] under general criteria.--] 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Strong Delete''' I am the original editor and would like this article to be deleted. --] 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | * '''Strong Delete''' I am the original editor and would like this article to be deleted. --] 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ** It should be noted that the author nominated much of his work for "Strong Delete" after a content dispute with another editor ] 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Week Keep''' Although I've been accused of having very high standards for notability (and it's probably true), I think this article should be given a chance. It may not yet meet ] but as Bill Clark and Dacium point out, it probably qualifies under other criteria. Give it a (short) while to develop, then relist if necessary.--] <sup>]</sup> | <sup>]</sup> 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Week Keep''' Although I've been accused of having very high standards for notability (and it's probably true), I think this article should be given a chance. It may not yet meet ] but as Bill Clark and Dacium point out, it probably qualifies under other criteria. Give it a (short) while to develop, then relist if necessary.--] <sup>]</sup> | <sup>]</sup> 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *Plant a stub, let it grow! '''Keep'''. --] 06:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | *Plant a stub, let it grow! '''Keep'''. --] 06:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Keep'''. In my humble opinion, this is a legitimate example of a notable company. Passes ]. There's evidence of ongoing legal disputes, among other things. ] 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. In my humble opinion, this is a legitimate example of a notable company. Passes ]. There's evidence of ongoing legal disputes, among other things. ] 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Keep''' This article about a cable company seems notable enough for Misplaced Pages. ]<small> (]) (])</small> 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | * '''Keep''' This article about a cable company seems notable enough for Misplaced Pages. ]<small> (]) (])</small> 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Keep''' The company has been around since 1912 and was involved in an FCC legal decision. ] 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:11, 7 February 2007
Graceba Total Communications
- Graceba Total Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Disputed speedy deletion, article doesn't present evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Count me neutral, procedural listing. --W.marsh 01:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Article is only a couple days old. Talk says they are working on it. Assume good faith. Looks like it may enough enough media coverage to pass WP:ORG under general criteria.--Dacium 01:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete I am the original editor and would like this article to be deleted. --Bill Clark 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the author nominated much of his work for "Strong Delete" after a content dispute with another editor Dhaluza 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Week Keep Although I've been accused of having very high standards for notability (and it's probably true), I think this article should be given a chance. It may not yet meet WP:CORP but as Bill Clark and Dacium point out, it probably qualifies under other criteria. Give it a (short) while to develop, then relist if necessary.--William Thweatt | 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Plant a stub, let it grow! Keep. --Dennisthe2 06:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Nothing about this article suggests advertising or a conflict of interest. Local cable TV providers are almost always likely to pass WP:CORP, given that their quasi-monopoly status in many communities is almost certain to make their activities the subject of independent commentary. This one seems to have encountered some kind of semi-newsworthy and public regulatory hassle. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Its best to keep the article for now. It is certainly not a spam page or any inflict of advertising, and I'm sure the page can be rewritten so it meets WP:CORP. Retiono Virginian 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. In my humble opinion, this is a legitimate example of a notable company. Passes WP:CORP. There's evidence of ongoing legal disputes, among other things. Philippe Beaudette 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This article about a cable company seems notable enough for Misplaced Pages. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The company has been around since 1912 and was involved in an FCC legal decision. Dhaluza 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)