Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTF

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Since we prevail on placing articles at the most common usage, and the companies website itself refers to it as KTF, I'm not going to move it myself. I will, however, create the full-name as a redirect. Since that redirect will have a trivial history, anyone can WP:BOLDLY move the existing article over it if they want to. -Splash 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KTF

This was previously deleted as blatant advertising. However, on VFU it was pointed out that the article was rewritten just before its deletion, and not all voters had been aware of that. So, it was decided to give it another chance. Abstain. Radiant_>|< 07:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Large company and the article seems to be fairly neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see a problem now. --Apyule 07:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the rewrite solved the problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks alright to me __earth 08:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It's a very poorly written article. As it stands, it is a two-paragraph summary of the company's alleged business dealings. Complete contravention of the NPOV policy: everything written about it is from the company's point of view. What do its competitors think of the company? How do its customers feel about it? Any studies on customer satisfaction? If so, how well has it done? Who do the governments, local and national, think about it? Has it had legal troubles? What is its economic history? What role has it played in its industry? Is it merely one of several players? Are those claims about its finances accurate? Why is it notable, aside from having a lot of customers, which is something millions and millions of companies around the world have? What particular notability has it a claim to that warrants mention in an encyclopedia? The fact that it introduced ring tones (I don't know, I'm just asking, as that seems to be the only claim of uniqueness I can see)? These questions pertain to WP:NPOV and WP:N. Next, we have questions pertaining to WP:V. To write a good encyclopedia article, the subject must be eminently verifiable from multiple reputable, independent sources. What sources were used to write this article? I see links to the company website. What primary or secondary sources were used to write this work? Or can be used by us if we wish to expand it? Do any exist? WP articles cannot be products of original research, they must be based on multiple reputable primary or secondary sources. See WP:RS. Like thousands of other articles currently on WP, this one seems to contravene some major WP policies and guidelines. Problem is what to do with articles that may indeed be about a notable subject (and this one may well be, I don't know; not enough is said about it for one to know), but which are in their present state really weak (and will likely always be weak)? After studying the policies, it seems to me this conundrum is open to interpretation, and is in fact the source of much dispute on AfD. My vote here is to delete (mainly because I think it will be near impossible for WP editors to source the material (what exists, that is) to write a good article per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:NOR), but equally many well-meaning editors will vote the other way. Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  09:35:19, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
• One last issue: The page is currently called KTF, the abbreviated form of the company's name. As it will likely be kept, could someone check if the title is in keeping with WP:MOS? Regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  09:38:16, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
• Delete Not NPOV. DV8 2XL 13:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, "not NPOV" is not a reason for deletion, feel free to edit the article. Kappa 14:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep POV, needs some more verification Roodog2k 14:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It's Wiki-worthy enough... UniReb 21:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep significant company. -- DS1953 00:57, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough Dottore So 01:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable company. Capitalistroadster 01:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The company appears to have annual gross revenue over US$5 billion, and is listed on its country's main stock exchange -- clearly notable. Google reveals a variety of articles referencing the company. The article should be kept at KTF as that appears to be the way the company refers to itself in English. --Metropolitan90 02:48, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Sensible votes people. I checked WP:MOS, which astonishingly does not appear to have a section on abbreviations, but does have one on acronyms. Cheers—Encephalon | ^ζ  04:19:55, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.