Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jitterbug Wireless
From 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 Keep Gnangarra 14:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jitterbug_Wireless[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Jitterbug_Wireless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
fairly blatant advertisement/reads like ad copy/does every cellphone deserve its own wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Amazing (talk • contribs)
- Keep and cleanup. GreatCall/Jitterbug has a national reach and plenty of WP:RS coverage to pass WP:CORP and fix POV problems. • Gene93k (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup (I'll see what I can do). Notable MVNO marketed to a particular market segment. Present article reads like an advert, but with cleanup and sources, it will do fine. --MCB (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Spam, beyond repair. -- Iterator12n Talk 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a G11. Sure, it can be cleaned up but that applies to most advert pages. No sources here to establish notability nor to underpin verifiability. TerriersFan (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some of the sources available: Fortune, Business Week, NYT, Wash. Post, ABC News. GreatCall/Jitterbug is a national MVNO carrier with continuous WP:RS coverage since it came out 2 years ago. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is noteworthy and has significant press coverage. I took a stab at neutralizing the language and added in some of the cites supplied by Gene93k, also further specifics.--Wageless (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2008 (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.