Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windstream Concord Telephone


 * 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 redirect to Windstream Holdings. The "keep" arguments do not seem to establish notability, but it is a plausible redirect and per the "redirect" arguments the information in history could be used to expand coverage of the acquired company in the article about its acquirer. RL0919 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Windstream Concord Telephone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete 12 year-old declined PROD; WP:BEFORE reveals no sources that rise to the level of meeting the WP:NCORP requirements. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Search for the company's original name, Concord Telephone, and you will find more references. This article about Clarence Horton, a retired judge and author, says that he wrote (among other things) a history of Concord Telephone, A Century of Progress. I have not seen the book itself, though, and the Library of Congress does not appear to have a copy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Amazon entry says "hardcover by Clarence Horton, Jr. as published by The Concord Telephone Co./Jostens Graphics, Inc., and copyrighted 1997," which would mean that the book was published by the company (as is often the case with such books), and therefore not a source independent of the subject.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find anything in a search which would lead me to believe they pass WP:NCORP. It's an old company, it's possible, but I can't find anything. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Eastmain's rationale Lubbad85  (☎)(Edits) 03:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to find a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. I also note that the book referenced by Eastmain above is published by the company themselves and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Windstream Holdings where it is mentioned. Though it doesn't meet notability standards for its own page, I see no reason not to convert it into a worthwhile redirect. I am not wild about a delete before the redirect since there is no reason not to preserve the history to alow expansion of the target if thought appropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. Current article is completely unsourced and, judging by this AfD, unlikely to be cleaned up in the near future. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:36, 3 July 2019 (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.