Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granby Telephone & Telegraph


 * 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. Enough sources have been presented to show that the article is capable of being expanded well beyond its current stub. I strongly suggest doing that before considering a merge. The expanded page may well be unsuitable to merge for UNDUE concerns. SpinningSpark 14:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Granby Telephone & Telegraph

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fairly fails to meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Should be merged with Otelco Asketbouncer (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. See this reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Having seen Eastmain's source (and he hasn't actually proffered a ground upon which to keep, valid or otherwise), I'm entirely underwhelmed. CORPDEPTH still applies, MULTSOURCES still applies, and WP:ORG and WP:GEOSCOPE certainly applies.  A valedictory for the small town telephone exchange from the local paper scarcely meets notability standards, especially given the sub-stub of an article. Speaking of a merger, there's nothing TO merge that isn't already in the other article.   Ravenswing      21:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The company is discussed in this historical book and this historical book on Granby by reputable academic publishers, and its notable for being one of the few surviving small telephone companies in the United States as stated in the first source. While not exactly independent, this United States Congress report could be used to source and expand content as well. Ultimately, there's enough here to establish SIGCOV and the company's interest to historians writing on the city of Granby is clear.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge Delete or Merge as per noms suggestion. Based on the sources found to date and my own searching, I cannot find any references that satisfy the criteria for establishing notability. The two books mentioned by 4meter4 above are self-published and therefore fail as they are not reliable sources. The reference by Eastmain (as noted by Ravenswing) fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND as most of the info is provided by a company employee, no indication of any "Independent Content". Topic therefore fails NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither source is self published. Both books are published by Arcadia Publishing which is widely respected for its publications of reliable local histories and academic textbooks. Both sources are high quality reference works published by a respected academic publisher and constitute independent and significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking again Arcadia bought a number of companies, some of which were self-publishing or self-distributing companies but Arcadia isn't. Thanks for the correction 4meter4. I don't believe the books do anything other than confirm the existence of the telephone company and I've modified my !vote to merge instead.  HighKing++ 20:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't see a clear consensus here yet.
 * Keep The nomination is proposing merger rather than deletion but the proposed target would not be an improvement.  There are plenty of sources, as noted noted above and so WP:ATD seems quite feasible and preferable, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 13:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.