Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linked Lakes

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. Tone 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linked Lakes

[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)

Not a notable company. BroadbandNow is a directory site that isn't sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. I can't find anything else on Google. From their own (very bare-bones) website, there is a banned Twitter profile and a LinkedIn profile that says the company was founded last year. I'm slightly concerned the company doesn't exist in any meaningful way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BroadbandNow pulls coverage maps from FCC Form 477. —CardFume (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments @CardFume: Please see WP:CORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:GNG. Having said that, I tagged for WP:G11. Will see what the reviewing admin thinks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand that, but they have to legally file a Form 477 through the FCC to be listed on BroadbandNow -CardFume (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. I'm not surprised at a lack of coverage for a company serving Big Rapids, Stanwood, and Paris. I'm familiar with the area and frankly, there's not much happening out there. Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient, significant, secondary coverage to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Content must be cited from reliable sources, secondary sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:01, 13 September 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.