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.
Keep Does not violate WP:NPOV, written from an unbiased perspective, and the company has a notable history. Just because it is bankrupt and defunct at this point in time doesn't mean that it is un-encyclopedic. Touch Of Light (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Notable history? Securing investement money, burning it, and then bailing out is the only history of this company. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HueSatLum 00:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand the original nom; the article has a total of two "sources" - a company search result (a service provided by Bloomberg Businessweek, in much the same way as The Australian Financial Review and other finance publications) and the company's own website. Hardly significant coverage by independent third parties. However, there are a number of sources which could be cited, specifically:
As such, I think it could be fixed with some effort. I might try to do some work to add the above to see if the article can be properly referenced. Stalwart111(talk) 01:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above - have now put in some of that said required effort. However, will certainly not fight consensus if others believe it should still be deleted. Cheers, Stalwart111(talk) 01:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - seems to be a Notable failure after the work of Stalwart111. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and what is the notability of this orphan company? Of course, its bankrupcy was covered in local press and court cases and whats not. There are tens of thousands of dead dot-com and other buinesses to cover. I guess, I can ramp up my editcount with them if following trhe logic of this afd :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I get entirely where you're coming from but surely a multi-state, multi-million-dollar company which was awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in Government funding then collapsed prompting a congressional investigation and which has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject sufficiently meets the requirements of WP:GNG. The Denver Post, as a side note, is the 12th-highest circulation paper in the US; hardly just "local press". I would agree if we were talking about an article entitled Collapse of Open Range Communications as distinct from the subject company but I contend an article that covers both the company and its high-profile collapse is warranted and meets WP:GNG. Stalwart111(talk) 00:54, 29 August 2012 (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.