Deletion of KTF

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  and . Next, we have questions pertaining to . 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 . 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 , , OT, OR), but equally many well-meaning editors will vote the other way. Kind regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:N||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NOT||WP:NOR)

Comment: Sensible votes people. I checked , which astonishingly does not appear to have a section on abbreviations, but does have one on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(acronyms)|acronyms. Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MOS)