Talk:PAETEC Holding Corp.

Untitled
from VfD:

Non-notable, six year old telecom company. Yawn. Claims to serve entire nation, but of all the cities listed, only one sorry, two is west of the Mississippi. If I had a nickel for every company that says they are a US telecom company... Niteowlneils 22:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity (more or less) . Whoops... Keep, I make mistakes now and then, this was one. Article needs expansion. Wyss 00:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 58,000 google hits, US$289 million in revenue for 2003. I say keep--seems to fall above previous criteria for keeping companies. Meelar (talk) 00:28, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Competitors AT&T, Sprint, MCI, and Verizon each had about 10-30 times the revenue--$20-70 billion. Niteowlneils 17:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * keep Yuckfoo 00:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article on the topic would be fine. This, however, is a factoid, not an article.  If not expanded to be a reasonable article by the end of VfD, delete. Geogre 04:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Must say I disagree. Certainly stubby, but acceptable, and it will be fleshed out eventually. But to each his own. Meelar (talk) 05:29, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Big enough to merit an article. This one is kind of pointless, but there's nothing wrong with keeping it around until someone expands it. Tuf-Kat 19:04, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability has already been demonstrated above, the fact that it's only a stub doesn't mean it should be erased. Frankly I think even listing it here was very bizarre. ("Yawn"? A $289 million business isn't notable? Huh??) DreamGuy 09:17, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - What DreamGuy said immediately above. -- Dominus 04:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\talk 18:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Apropos - I missed any references to national service claims but the article just looks like the facts to me. JimScott 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

end moved discussion

==

JoeBrennan (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC) The meaning or origin of the peculiar name should be added. I don't see it on the company web page. Noted also, the name is sometimes written all-caps and sometimes in the form PaeTec (e.g. see http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=209.2.0.0).

PaeTec is correct prior to the USLEC merger. The name officially changed to PAETEC at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torimagic (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on PAETEC Holding Corp.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071017150446/http://rbj.net:80/fullarticle.cfm?sdid=69453 to http://www.rbj.net/fullarticle.cfm?sdid=69453

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)