Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WilTel Communications (2nd nomination)

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 Williams Companies#Telecommunications. Anyone interested in merging content can access the redirected article's Revision history to view its content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WilTel Communications

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

Previous AfDs for this article:

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:GB fan with the following rationale "ecline PROD. Article is ineligible as it was previously at VFD". While I comment GB fan for finding this piece of wiki history, all it shows is that this spam has survived more than 10 years. It is time to put it out of our misery. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I noticed when the article was PRODed and when it was taken to AfD here now, and I concur with the nomination, even if it was nominate 10 years ago, this current article still speaks for itself and there's nothing actually convincing; I'll note my own searches found nothing but published-republished PR and trivial mentions. SwisterTwister talk 03:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect this back into Williams Companies#Telecommunications, where it's briefly discussed and could be productively expanded. This Williams venture was a significant early player in the fiber optic sector. Here is a detailed 2002 AP story on the history of the company up to that point; here is The Wall Street Journal. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is an acceptable solution, thanks for finding a good target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I didn't want to decline the PROD but just wasn't eligible but the redirect option found is the best solution to this article. -- GB fan 11:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Agreed, this should lead to Williams Companies#Telecommunications via merge and redirect. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Redirect to Williams Companies#Telecommunications. Anup [Talk] 17:47, 12 November 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.