Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllCity Wireless
understanding of or familiarity with the subject is irrelevant because  isn't allowed anyway. Editors are simply asked to make an assessment about whether there is "significant coverage" enough to |verify that the company/entity passes  or, in the case of commercial entities, . In my opinion, it does not. Some of the "sources" in question are simply press releases from commercial affiliate Nortel - certainly not independent of Nortel or of the entity in question who are supplied by them. The article from the Baltimore Sun might be from a |reliable source but it doesn't mention the subject at all (nor do many of the others I might add) - they mention the subsidiary ''"Annapolis Wireless Internet"''. It's hard to see how it could be considered "significant coverage" of the subject if it doesn't mention the subject. To be perfectly frank, the sources are horrible - a mish-mash of corporate press releases, installation guides, and e-commerce sites selling particular products. Even accepting that coverage of the subsidiary = coverage of the parent company, there doesn't seem to be enough to substantiate notability
— NONE, NONE
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:V||WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:RS (Wikipedia:No original research)