Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeleChoice

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TeleChoice

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has not received the depth of coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy corporate notability standards. SITH (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-running national chain that's been covered in the business papers for years. It is absolutely obtuse to suggest that coverage does not exist just because it's not currently in the article and someone couldn't be bothered looking further before forming opinions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife, actually, I did do the usual searches and the only thing that came up that is independent and reliable that was in a major publication was this. I don't think it connotes notability; all big companies have squabbles with their customers. Just because something's big doesn't make it notable. So the onus is on you to provide evidence the the contrary. That is, assuming you can be bothered. SITH (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep Searching finds press release material, articles written by connected authors and minor mentions - none of that establishes notability. Happy to reconsider if other editors identify specific coverage that is helpful. Changed to Keep per sources listed by Unoc Gab4gab (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is some independent coverage, but not a lot. There is enough to turn the current micro stub into a "proper" stub but that is about it, eg, optus and telstra relationships, one major customer stuff up (but due weight would not even manage a full paragraph), major sport sponsorship, and a couple of other things. Most of the coverage is just marketing stuff and I cannot see how in-depth or core could be achieved. Aoziwe (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep a company that started in 1995, had 500 employees. I'd say it was at least a decent sized telecom carrier. I haven't looked much deeper than reading this article though https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/the-little-telco-taking-on-optus-20180501-p4zcls.html I'm not surprised it got nominated for deletion though, given that creator just created with the expectations of others to do all the hard work. Graywalls (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article cites no sources, but it's own. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Independence and significance of the cited resources shall be evaluated further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - As per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. If you look back through the edit history you can find a much more substantial article. Just one quick web search reveals enough sources to satisfy corporate notability standards, for example; [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Unoc (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it's all about one event. SITH (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Graywalls. Mosaicberry (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.