Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIME Fibre Broadband

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TIME Fibre Broadband

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, only consists of infobox. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're quick. I was adding a WP:PROD to this but you beat me to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourced or not, this is simply advertising. No claim of significance here and doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the sources below, still not convinced

New Strait Times Brief coverage in a list of other broadband services]
Sun(Malaysia) - redressed press release This one is essentially a redressed press release, with 80% of the article consisting of quotes by an employee. Not useful for WP:CORPDEPTH (quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources) or for WP:CORPIND.
BBCMag or BBP Mag Doesn't seem like an RS to me.

The coverage is pretty spotty here and this service is clearly not notable. Someone might make a case of the parent company being notable and indeed, I do have access to Malay sources which might help to satisfy CORPDEPTH. But that's for the parent company not for this. This is not notable. More importantly this is clearly using Wikipedia for promotion, which should not be encouraged per WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do editors think of sources like The Sun, New Strait Times, BBCMag (not 'the' BBC), another The Sun link? Lourdes 07:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources aside, this article violates notability guidelines for corporations under WP:CORPDEPTH. --♫CheChe♫ talk 18:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CheCheDaWaff, I didn't quite understand what you're saying. Are you saying the sources within the article are okay? Or are they not? And how does this article violate notability guideline? Any clue would be helpful. Thanks. Lourdes 20:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Lourdes:, I should have been more clear. Personally I'm not comfortable with the sources but I'm not sure how favourably they compare to the guidelines on reliable sources. (WP:RS should probably be consulted here). Perhaps violate was the wrong word. What I mean to say is that I don't think it qualifies as notable, as specified in WP:CORPDEPTH. The specific issue I have is with this: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Failing this condition (of having deep coverage) means that the article needs several independent sources that establish the notability of the subject, which I don't think it does. I'm willing to budge on this, and I think it will come down to an assessment of the sources. For that reason (me not being sure about the sources), I'm changing my stance to unsure for now. Thanks for getting me to look into it a bit harder. --♫CheChe♫ talk 22:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: having looked at the sources and read what Lemongirl942 has written about them, I am again leaning towards deletion. --♫CheChe♫ talk 22:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.