Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Open Network


 * 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 merge to Wireless community network. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

People's Open Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability concerns. While there are two references with coverage beyond trivial mentions, the coverage is just as an example of how mesh wireless community networks work. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete- Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, not seeing the necessary coverage about the company itself. The nom's point is a good one, as the articles I have seen about the article subject place most of their emphasis on the broad concept of community wireless networks and do not go into depth about People's Open Network specifically.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - No 3rd party independent corporate coverage. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted to give community time to review Oppesu's additional sources.
 * Keep - Addressed WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH criteria with new additional edits — which includes media coverage of the project itself from several secondary sources — to demonstrate standalone notability. Oppesu (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)oppesu (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are some external sources to validate the more-than-substantial existence of People's Open Network: Do you still need something more in-depth? And if so, can you clarify what "in-depth" means in the context of recognition of a project's existence for over 5 years? How about a Github organization actively spanning that duration? Thank you, Tunabananas (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mesh network offers potential for free wireless Internet in Oakland
 * Newly Formed Multi-Disciplinary Collective Omni Oakland Eyes Former Omni Building
 * Oakland's Sudo Mesh Looks to Counter Censorship and Digital Divide With a Mesh Network
 * Pollination Project Award: People's Open Network
 * Oakland’s Omni Commons space is where it’s at
 * Proposed FCC rule threatens Oakland mesh network, Wi-Fi projects
 * Wireless Mesh Network Aims To Bridge Digital Divide
 * Mozilla WINS Challenge Honorable Mention - People's Open Network
 * Selective merge to Wireless community network. I'm not convinced any of the sources cited here establish WP:N.  They're largely not WP:RS, and the ones that are RS, are very local in scope.  I found this PC Magazine article which mentions PON, but it's really just a mention.  On the other hand, Wireless community network would benefit from a listing of major examples.  Much of what's mentioned in People's Open Network is generic to the Wireless community network concept.  I wouldn't bring over everything, just cherry-pick the generic text for the most significant things that make sense to preserve, and a couple of sentences about this particular example, along with the best sources as references.  In fact, I would look over Special:WhatLinksHere/Wireless_community_network; I suspect many of the incoming links there are similar examples of WCNs which are not, by themselves, notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Wireless community network per RoySmith. I agree that the few mentions of the project don't constitute significant coverage sufficient to establish notability for a stand-alone article, however, the subject seems to be sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the target article. Regards SoWhy 17:54, 1 March 2018 (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.