Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairpoint Communications
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-09 09:33Z
- Fairpoint Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Company lacks coverage by third party independent sources. Questionable notability. Alan.ca 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete I started this article, and would like it deleted --Bill Clark 20:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Apparently Bill became frustrated with the WP process after a mass deletion of his hard work. This vote for deletion seems to be out of frustration. --Kevin Murray 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since it does give credibility to the article. Robert Moore 08:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The "lack of coverage" statement cited in the nomination is not supportable. It is a publicly traded company on the NYSE that was spun off from Verizon. Searching on the ticker "FRP" turns up ample coverage. Dhaluza 00:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Alan, you failed to do proper due-dilligence prior to nominating this article. 90,000 plus G-hits should have given you a clue that this was merely a poorly referenced article in need of TLC and a new edditor who would have benefited from your guidance rather than rejection. This is an embarassment for WP. Shame on you! --Kevin Murray 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 90,000 is an overstatement because a fair number of those google hits are duplicates of the same press releases covered in different papers. And once you get past the first few hundred, you also start getting a fair number of false positives where the company's name is coming up in a directory listing. That said, I did find enough independent, non-trivial sources to satisfy myself that a balanced, properly-sourced article is probably possible. Keep for now. The page is barely a day old. Give it a chance to grow. We can always revisit the decision if it proves to be unexpandable after a month or three.
By the way, others researching this company should also check for references under its predecessor name YCOM Networks.Rossami (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I agree that the 90k includes junk, and I'm not saying that it asserts notability, but it should give Alan a clue to look a bit further. --Kevin Murray 00:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 90,000 is an overstatement because a fair number of those google hits are duplicates of the same press releases covered in different papers. And once you get past the first few hundred, you also start getting a fair number of false positives where the company's name is coming up in a directory listing. That said, I did find enough independent, non-trivial sources to satisfy myself that a balanced, properly-sourced article is probably possible. Keep for now. The page is barely a day old. Give it a chance to grow. We can always revisit the decision if it proves to be unexpandable after a month or three.
- Note: Here is a link to some articles if someone wants to do some research. M2 Update, that is a paid service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.