Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polnet Communications

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polnet Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

= No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. BEFORE shows only few mentions in passing, primarily routine press releases (mergers, acquisitions, etc.). No in-depth coverage. Non news/PR coverage is limited to single in-passing mention in minor scholarly article ([1]) which does not discuss it in depth, just acknowledges its existence in passing. I don't think that's enough. While a merge has been suggested, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Kotaba. Hopefully we don't nd up with two AfDs closed with the verdict 'not notable, merge to one another'. I think neither the company nor its owner is notable, unfortunately. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Renata (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found a few FCC documents and memorandum orders about the station. I already added them in the article. Those sources make the article good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ICE T: I am sorry but FCC documents about routine operations such as business licences are PRIMARY and in no way estabilish notability. You might as well argue that someone is notable because we found their birth certificate or employment contract. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I withdraw my vote (for now) since this is linked to this one. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Company fails WP:NCORP due to lacking in-depth coverage in multiple secondary sources. FCC filings don't work as a notability source since they are trivial coverage that every radio station has to file. Plus, the citation doesn't add anything to the article anyway because it was just added on to a sentence that already had two citations. Which is semi (in an extremely minor way) ref bombing. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:36, 31 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.