Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Datavo Communications

The name PCS1 and Datavo was repeating in several wiki pages and on the web and I thought that it is relevant to put one page that will address the connection between the two. Datavo it is PCS1 in the same way that AT&T it is SBC. I am looking to provide more information and sources about the two.


 * Regarding the names, the article claims that Datavo is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PCS1, whereas SBC was renamed to AT&T, so the relationship is not the same. If this article is really intended to be about PSC1, then it should be renamed and proper sources should be provided to show that PSC1 is notable (and that Datavo is a subsidiary. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This article has been previously deleted - Datavo
Datavo page been previously delete mainly for my poor knowledge of Wiki system. I used to have the page open and modifying it without putting attentions to the comments from the admin and in the moment that I realize it I moved it to my home page, and I know now that it was wrong too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by At4470 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Datavo Communications notable
I looked at some of telecom companies that have a page in Wiki and trying to understand why they are notable and Datavo is not. Most of the companies are public and Datavo is not - but I know that it is not the main reason, because they are plenty of Privately Held companies in Wiki. Datavo it is a privately owned company that standing buy her one and because of limited resources and complicity in telecom baseness the name change from PCS1 cannot happen in one day like in AT&T case. Datavo currently providing service to business market with over 100,000 people in total and working with all major telecom companies. I am strongly belive that Datavo is notable not less than most of the telecom companies that are called notable in Wikipedia pages.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by At4470 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for not signing in the end(I am learning) --At4470 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No coverage in independent reliable sources
I am a big fan of Wiki. I have three kids and for every project that they are getting from school I am sending them to do the research first thing in Wiki pages and for the main reason because I know that it is a reliable source and every word has been double checked and approved by more then one person. The problem coming when we are dealing with a business companies and it is very difficult to find a reliable source and even much more harder for privately own companies. I tried to compare Datavo sources to other privately owned ones that have a page in Wiki and did not see to much of the difference. The sources that look reliable you know that they are paid sources and it looks that to get the "notable" definition you need to spend some money, and companies that spend more money have been called more "notable" then the others. I am asking from you guys before you delete the page please compare Datavo to other telecom companies pages and see why there are more notable and how they have more reliable sources. Thank you again for every thing that you are doing to make Wiki what is today.

--At4470 (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't, I'm afraid a good argument. If the other articles about data communications companies have poor sources that's only an argument to delete those pages. It is not an argument in favor of keeping this one. Notable companies are ones that are covered in reliable sources. A good example is AT&T which is the subject of frequent press coverage. Look at this query on Google News: . You will see extensive coverage of TAT&T in recognized national press outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Barron's, Forbes, and Business Week. None of these are press releases, they are independent articles about AT&T written by professional journalists. If you run the equivalent query for Datavo you get: . One result which is a reprint of a press release. That's why AT&T is notable and Datavo is not.


 * As a side note, please don't tell your kids that Wikipedia articles are "reliable and every word has been double checked". This is simply not the case. Indeed, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles and many articles contain deliberate or accidental errors. Much better to teach your kids good critical thinking skills and the ability to tell well sourced information from unsourced material, than to rely on Wikipedia blindly. Good luck, Sparthorse (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

AT&T it is very good example, and I believe that if your going to compare AT&T to any other telecom companies then none of them can be called as notable. AT&T is a monopoly that controlling most of the telecom market in the USA and it is in there benefits that small companies like Datavo will exist, then they can show that there are free market and there is competition, when in reality they are the only one that control it all. A company like Datavo that's providing a service to thousands  of customers over 10 years have no words to say because you can not compare them to AT&T and in any way that you will try to compare between the two Datavo will loose. I am trying to convince you guys there are a place in Wiki pages for a company like Datavo and it is worth to put one source that will summarize who they are and what they are doing with no success, so in the same way go try to convince customers to pick Datavo over AT&T it is much harder and in the end the consumer will be the one that will loose, because there are no real competition and AT&T is the one that's controlling it all. In the end they are the one that look bigger, better with more value and with much more content then the others, when in reality I am not sure that it is the case at least customers of small companies at least know that they have a choice compare to most of AT&T customers that most of them even don't know that there are other options. Thank you all again.

--At4470 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

please place your comments in the deletion discussion rsther than this page. -- --Whpq (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)