Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional Broadband Consortium


 * 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. Euryalus (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Regional Broadband Consortium

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No notability asserted, no sourcing found. A7 declined without comment Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 16:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Regional Broadband Consortia appears to be private organisations operated by the local and regional government. As a national project, this article (and the related consortia) may meet WP:N. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 10:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So they're notable just because they exist, right? Are you Kmweber in disguise? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nein. I'm not a sockpuppeteer. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 16:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject that received significant coverage in reliable sources, see:
 * Those are just the first few GBooks hits. TLDR: WP:BEFORE fail.
 * Also, I reject the assertion A7 declined without comment - I clearly gave you my reason for rejecting in the edit summary (as I always do). Regards  So Why  16:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are just the first few GBooks hits. TLDR: WP:BEFORE fail.
 * Also, I reject the assertion A7 declined without comment - I clearly gave you my reason for rejecting in the edit summary (as I always do). Regards  So Why  16:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are just the first few GBooks hits. TLDR: WP:BEFORE fail.
 * Also, I reject the assertion A7 declined without comment - I clearly gave you my reason for rejecting in the edit summary (as I always do). Regards  So Why  16:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I reject the assertion A7 declined without comment - I clearly gave you my reason for rejecting in the edit summary (as I always do). Regards  So Why  16:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep With the number of sources by SoWhy above one have to wonder what kind of check you ran that falsely resulted in "no sources". And the A7 decline has comment, you claimed there was no reason given. This nomination is wholly based on false premise. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 23 January 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.