Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XLN Telecom

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XLN Telecom

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

Lack of sources seem article seem to written in a form of advertisement. Lack of sources to back the company up, and seem to mention the company in more of self promotion advertisement. simon161388 ( talk ) 12:50, 11 March 2014 (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/2014 March 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be a WP:Pointy nomination given the authors own article has been nominated for deletion, and the author of Blue Penguins has already been mentioned at WPANI. Martin451 13:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Martin451 13:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Martin451 13:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Martin451 13:11, 11 March 2014 (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/2014 March 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Despite being in UK, this is not a company that I am aware of hearing. The article has far too much (self?)-promotion, amking it a horrible article. Nevertheless, if accurate, the company is almost certainly notable, so that deletion should not be an option. even so, the article needs a lot of pruning and tidying up to make a decent article of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is self promotion, outdated, more in the lines of commerical spam 209.172.25.93 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I failed to find multiple reliable secondary sources. EverythingI found was either a mere mention, or industry websites (i.e. "Serviceproviders.com" or something) that were non-notable and interested in promoting products. Until people are covering and confirming their claims, delete away. SarahStierch (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2014 (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.