Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trumpet Mobile


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 01:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Trumpet Mobile

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advert for non-notable company that uses only primary sources CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagged as G11 - The article has a promotional tone and seems to focus most with their products rather than information about the company. Two Google News searches, "Trumpet Mobile mobile phone" and "Trumpet Mobile Dallas" provided either press releases or insignificant news articles about the partnerships with Radio Shack and Western Union. One of the results is even a news article from Denver, Colorado here which says they sell in "150 major U.S. markets including Denver". The article says they are based in Dallas, Texas but I've never heard of or seen them (despite that I live in the Dallas-area) and their website doesn't list a physical address, only a P. O. box address in Iowa and a 1-800 number. Searches with "Fred Haumesser" and "Dennis Henderson" provided the same results, nothing useful aside from a The Gazette news article requiring payment. After multiple different news searches, I found this recent news article from that same newspaper and this (I couldn't find the original link for the other The Gazette article). All in all, there isn't anything significant and a redirect could've been made for the parent company if an article existed. SwisterTwister   talk  21:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 21:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Promotional and lacking secondary sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2013 (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.