Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thumb Cellular


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  02:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thumb Cellular

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. Found name mentions, promotional, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Michigan.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Why not try to add on to the article rather than delete it? I worked on it for literally 2 1/2 hours trying to find the most information I could on the subject. I did it right before I had to go to work too. Plus, there are many local cellular providers and local radio stations listed on Wikipedia that have been up for years, meaning that there is an interest in them. What makes Thumb Cellular different? Demondude182 (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the current rule is supposed to be that we can't trust what companies have to say about themselves. This includes pres releases, and most of the regular business announcements that you see, which are mostly just copy-and-pasted press releases. It to be less strict, and the articles on those other local cellular providers were probably created back then, and nobody has gotten around to reviewing if they need to be deleted since then. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you not ready of declaring your COI or connection with the company? Obviously there should be. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 19:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Safari Scribe, please do not be unnecessary confrontational in AFDs. They are tense already for content creators. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh my bad, I never had that in mind. Well noted. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 05:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: I'm relisting because there is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator, preventing a Soft Deletion closure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Please offer an assessment of improvements to the article since its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see some WP:ROUTINE local coverage but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I'm sympathetic to the article creator but I don't see any way we can write a compliant article. To avioid losing their work, we do have the option of redirecting to, say, List of mobile virtual network operators in the United States, and retaining the content in the article history. We could also justify a potential SIZESPLIT for that list, perhaps by state or something, and I could see a short blurb on a split out "list of MVNOs in Michigan" or "Mobile providers in Michigan" as potentially justifiable, in which case some of the content could be merged. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alpha3031, I understand being empathetic for the creator. But it isn't any majority challenge for redirecting. Most editors including handful established editor has see their article deleted. Believe you me, this redirect you're leaning in will soon be turned again into an article and we will return here again. It's important we know when we can redirect a slightly notable article or not. It's kit the first time one will work in am article for years even and at the end of the fatal year, sees it at AFD
 * Ig we all should consider such empathy, hmmmmm...then, Wikipedia should never delete any article where the creator tells how they have suffered in creating that article. Maybe you can chill them up on their TP. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 19:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * SafariScribe, I suggested redirect here because redirection to a list is a perfectly valid ATD. That there be disruptive editing afterwards is not an argument against that any more than the page creator possibly recreating the page would be an argument against deletion (they're perfectly capable of doing that, they're autoconfirmed). The appropriate measures to deal with that would be page protection or blocks (though we wouldn't use those preemptively either). Redirects do not have to be notable or even encyclopedic or printworthy. We have  of R unprintworthy redirects, because redirects are cheap. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: No redirect here pls. Much of primary, and WP:ROUTINE. Doesn't meet much requirement for entry per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. Such articles may not slightly meet notability at instant and redirecting will not save us that it isn't notable at all. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 19:15, 3 June 2024 (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.