Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercell (mobile network)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supercell (mobile network)

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

Non-notable local telecommunications company. SST flyer 12:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable stub. Promo piece that fails WP:Corp. Reads like a press release. Kierzek (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not a press release, all sources are independent of the company. The source material is meager indeed. I can say that, after several very detailed internet search. The company operates in an area where for 20 years there is a civil war. In this context, it is quite relevant that there does not operate the remaining Congolese telephone companies, but one that is close to Rwanda. Without the economic relationships, particularly in the mobile phone sector, the First, second and Kivu conflict cannot been understood. These points should be added in the article, but I have not found any reliable sources yet. --Eruedin (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any reason to delete this stub. It is real company and it doesn't make any marketing claims. Why should it be deleted - no, it should be expanded. The problem for most African articles is that it is often difficult to source material. We should be patient. Comments about the First and Second Congo wars, as well as the Kivu conflict(s) are all relevant to emerging economies. This is an article which needs its context and should exist to provide information in a country in which truth is so often supressed and politicised. Keep, keep, keep! Francis Hannaway (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not quite sure how this could be mistaken for a press release, but is cited by a number of WP:RS. As a stub, it's perfectly average but also notable.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fracis Hannaway. If this was an article about a mobile network operating in one US state, there would be no doubt about its notability. And there are reliable sources, the newspaper articles cited in the article. — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets notability guidelines. The area of the world may be remote, and the network relatively small, but it meets notability guidelines and supported by multiple WP:RS. Clearly it's a stub and needs a lot of work, but no reason to delete it - if it is kept it stands a chance of being further developed in time. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neutral point of view requires more coverage of things around the world. Not less. My local phone company has its own article separate from that of its (notable) parent company; likewise, this telephone company should have its own article. 71.191.205.5 (talk) 19:22, 29 September 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.