Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emery Telcom

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 no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emery Telcom[edit]

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

Not notable according to WP:NCORP. Basically no sources. AusLondonder (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because there's not much notability, News provided results but nothing good, Books provided listings and Highbeam actually found quite a few links such as "Utah's leading provider" and "state recognition for superior service" but the second page is mostly listings. Thefreelibrary also found similiar results. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nom ~~has been~~ (CORRECTION: WAS TEMPORARILY) blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet - creator of inappropriate AFDs. this one ~~probably~~ (CORRECTION: APPEARED TO ME AT THE TIME TO PROBABLY BE) camouflage for ~~his~~ (CORRECTION: WHAT APPEARED TO ME AT THE TIME TO BE) politically-motivated AFDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not true. I was blocked for 24 hours several weeks ago (in a close-call decision which has been appealed) but that did not, in any conceivable way relate to 'politically-motivated AFD's' AusLondonder (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I request you strike that comment User:E.M.Gregory AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In 2004–2005, the company received a modicum of news coverage during a 20-month investigation of its business practices by the Utah Attorney General, at the end of which no charges were filed:

Oberbeck, Steven (12 February 2004). "Utah Agents Raid Rural Phone Company in Orangeville". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 15 May 2015 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
"Emery Telcom remains under investigation, company board responds to affidavit allegations". Sun Advocate. Price, UT. 23 September 2004. Retrieved 15 May 2015.
Johnson, Lynnda (22 December 2005). "Attorney general declines to pursue criminal charges in Emery Telcom complaint". Sun Advocate. Price, UT. Retrieved 15 May 2015.

Worldbruce (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ILLCON that does not make for notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for the follow-up. I had read that section before, but at the time I commented could neither remember its specifics nor locate it. I had searched extensively, including by the former and holding company name Emery Telephone, and the only other coverage I saw was in trade journals with a narrow audience and uncertain editorial oversight, mentions in the routine course of business (rate applications, for example), and/or hyper-local to the few towns where Emery Telecom operates, so I say delete as not meeting WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Strong keep - ~~the sourcing is iffy, but close enough.~~ Added more cites to bring the RS sources to a total of four. Including the crime investigation cites above, there is more than enough to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 26 May 2015 (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.