Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KLM Telephone

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KLM Telephone

[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)

Local telephone company, I can find no evidence of notability for this one. Does not seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, as the coverage I can find is routine coverage, mostly based announcements from when it was bought out, and old listings in state government business directories, both of which would be considered routine. The rest of the coverage I can find is self-published, mostly by the current owner, although some by the entity. These also do not demonstrate notability. I find it telling that the organization's parent company does not have an article. Hog Farm (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Although one could argue the company has historical significance in some way, but I'm not the one to argue it and there aren't any in-depth reliable sources to establish notability anyway. There is an FCC record that discusses them sorta in-depth, but that's not enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2020 (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.