Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telexfree

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 Speedy keep. Neutral nomination withdrawn and no delete opinions were voiced. (non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telexfree

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

I am bringing this article to AfD because I cannot determine whether it is an attack page on the corporation or not. It is insufficiently well sourced to remain an article as it stands, but does assert sufficient notability to be CSD-proof. I am nominating it in a neutral manner and will form my own judgment as the discussion progresses. Most of the issues with the company in the article as written appear to be with its sister company or companies. Fiddle Faddle 10:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the sources provided I am able to withdraw this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 16:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys. We did some researches on internet to write this first version of Telexfree Inc. article, including Telexfree portuguese Wikipedia page and we hope that our team will contribute with more pieces of information. Thanks Duda100 Duda100 10:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the current edit is an attempt to translate the corresponding article on the portuguese Wikipedia, which is appropriately sourced, with plenty of references. Parts of the text are coincident. Maybe after inserting references from its portuguese version, as well as finding english sources, the article might be adequate to stay. Maurício Gomes MMN (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Non English references are perfectly acceptable. Fiddle Faddle 10:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right, then the current english article does need the sources from the portuguese article. I will try to add some. Maurício Gomes MMN (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be swell. Sorry for the aggravation. Dloh cierekim 14:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a newly brought-over-article from PtW. While some people argue that articles should be created perfect they are not. While it would be less troublesome to those of us in the NPP is these articles were sandboxed until creators were done with their initial efforts, the tradition is to construct them in article space because article building used to be a collaborative effort. Nowadays, new article (at least to en.W) creators must run a gauntlet of deletion attempts. For cripes sake, if it has an article on another W and is being worked on in English, let's give those who are here to build the encyclopedia a chance to build it. (I'm part of the problem too, I speedied it as a cross language duplicate. Why is this even a criterion?). What I and anyone else with deletion in our hearts should do is engage the creator before whipping out the deletion templates.(I bare the blame for this AfD. I speedied it. If I'd userfied, we would be less likely to want it deleted the second time).<rant /> Dloh cierekim 13:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue here is that the page potentially may defame the corporation. This is why I brought it here. It was already on my watch list,and you bear no blame. Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the intent is to defame based on the creator's tone. If the creator could remove any negative content till it's sourced, it would be less problematic. Do we still have a BLP noticeboard? Haven't been there in a while. Blah. to little sleep. Dloh cierekim 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentOne may not intend to do something, but one can still achieve that result. Because it is a corporation WP:BLPN has little value. We just need to ensure that the article is either sourced or deleted. That was my objective in this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI have adressed 11 sources for this articles of the main Brazilian news portals, since the events are happening in Brazil. In addition, I have added Brazilian authorities reports about the company. Hope to add more in a near future.Duda100 Duda100 15:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have discovered the the secret to life, the universe, and everything Dloh cierekim 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The article is properly and widely sourced. By the language used, the author seems to be neutral and factual. Verifying the the sources, one can notice it include all the major news portals in Brazil, which seems relevant enough to be significant to be featured on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontiersanders (talk • contribs) 08:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The wikipedia collaboration team was able to add in three days, more than 20 sources of major news portals that are following the company and this article is completely in line with the Portuguese/Brazilian article. I´m comfortable to vote to the keeping of the article. Thanks to all contributors.--Duda100 (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:01, 4 December 2013 (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.