Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Telecom
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 delete. Courcelles 00:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Total Telecom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is written like an advertisment and is entirely unsourced. I could find many companies with similar names covered in the news, but not this one specifically.
WP:ORG appear to be failed. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 17:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, provisionally. Automated GNews searching is hindered by the fact that this article is about a minor tech trade news outlet, and itself a mighty republisher of press releases. The article puts it this way: provider of news and analysis for the global communications industry. Another global provider. It has downloadable issues on its website, which the article struggles to make seem like a mighty achievement: Since 2010 monthly analysis has been provided via Total Telecom+ which is available as a Digital Page Turner, PDF and iPad app. Since search engines are borked looking for this, I'd be happy to change my mind if pointed to deep coverage in independent, reliable sources; and if the article were rewritten into something less airish and more fitting an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per lack of third-party sources, none were found on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 5 August 2011 (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.