- 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
NetLink Trust
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- NetLink Trust ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. A before search only shows me hits in user generated sources Celestina007 ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I was considering AfDing this myself but then I saw that it appears to be WP:LISTED as SGX: CJLU
. May also be a subsidiary of Singtel (it apparently was as of 2017), in which case a merge is possible. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 17:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep A search on 'NetLink Trust' may not turn up anything significant as this Trust was established in 2013 to buy out its predecessor, OpenNet. But for all intent and purposes, both are one and the same in terms of their company objectives and goals, which is to build and maintain Singapore's national-wide fibre backbone. There is significant coverage of either entity on national level. That being said, this article can be further expanded (possibly retitled as well to 'Next-gen national broadband network (Singapore)') with various information such as the motivations for building up such a network; issues faced during implementation as OpenNet, be it regulatory issues or installation issues; questions on diversity and resilience of national networks (re:
Singtel#Bukit_Panjang_Exchange_fire); alternatives to NetLink Trust's network .
- On motivations of developing national fibre network: http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/stocktaking/docs/activities/1291981845/Towards%20a%20Next%20Generation%20Connected%20Nation_Singapore.pdf https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4d0fd3e2-1d2f-405b-b4b6-e1707282afa0 https://www.telecompaper.com/news/singapore-to-implement-next-generation-broadband-networks--510387
- On issues of rolling out the network: https://www.zdnet.com/article/opennet-fined-s750k-for-wiring-and-connecting-users-too-slowly/ https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ida-fines-netlink-trust-s450000-failing-meet-service-standards https://www.mci.gov.sg/pressroom/news-and-stories/pressroom/2012/9/mcis-response-to-pq-on-ngnbn-installation-by-opennet?page=82_6
- On the resilience of physical communications infrastructure in Singapore: https://www.mci.gov.sg/pressroom/news-and-stories/pressroom/2013/11/mcis-response-to-pq-on-the-fire-at-the-singtel-bukit-panjang-exchange https://www.telecomasia.net/content/singtel-exchange-fire-sparks-outages?src=related https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/record-s6m-fine-singtel-over-bukit-panjang-fire
- On establishing diversity and resilience of fibre networks in Singapore: https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/sp-telecom-to-build-alternative-fibre-network-with-intelligence https://www.straitstimes.com/tech/sp-telecom-to-build-alternative-fibre-network – robertsky ( talk) 02:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- An extraction from your comment above reads A search on 'NetLink Trust' may not turn up anything significant, and you are !voting to keep an article that doesn’t turn up anything significant thus failing to satisfy
WP:ORG? Furthermore, what you just did by listing references in a disorderly manner is definitely intentionally disruptive, adjust that.
Celestina007 (
talk)
03:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ Celestina007: NetLink Trust may not turn up anything significant since majority of the work, and thus majority of the coverage, was done under its predecessor, OpenNet. You are deliberately focusing on one part of my response. Like I said, NetLink Trust and OpenNet for all intents and purposes are the same company, and should be considered as such. I vote for keep on basis of the bolded words in the previous statement. What may seems insignificant company to a non-Singapore based editor is significant to a Singapore based editor, given that this company is Singapore-based in nature, and focuses primarily on Singapore's national infrastructure with no or little international coverage. As for the sources above, if it seems disruptive to you, my apologies, but I do not believe so. It is in sequence to my response above, nonetheless I will reorganise it, hopefully sufficiently. – robertsky ( talk) 13:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- An extraction from your comment above reads A search on 'NetLink Trust' may not turn up anything significant, and you are !voting to keep an article that doesn’t turn up anything significant thus failing to satisfy
WP:ORG? Furthermore, what you just did by listing references in a disorderly manner is definitely intentionally disruptive, adjust that.
Celestina007 (
talk)
03:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per robertsky. Adding on past issues as OpenNet - [1], [2] (Note - The company, tasked to build the country’s national fibre optic network, had failed to connect up users fast enough, according to new standards set by the government regulator in January 2013.) and as NLT - [3], [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It is listed and covered by many analysts. I can't access the analyst reports but there are many of them. Analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP and I am satisfied to assume that at least two of these reports provide Independent Content and in-depth analysis. Topic meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing ++ 18:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. A significant organisation for Singapore. Rathfelder ( talk) 07:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per robertsky. -- SalmanZ ( talk) 13:36, 17 October 2020 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
NetLink Trust
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- NetLink Trust ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. A before search only shows me hits in user generated sources Celestina007 ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 17:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I was considering AfDing this myself but then I saw that it appears to be WP:LISTED as SGX: CJLU
. May also be a subsidiary of Singtel (it apparently was as of 2017), in which case a merge is possible. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 17:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep A search on 'NetLink Trust' may not turn up anything significant as this Trust was established in 2013 to buy out its predecessor, OpenNet. But for all intent and purposes, both are one and the same in terms of their company objectives and goals, which is to build and maintain Singapore's national-wide fibre backbone. There is significant coverage of either entity on national level. That being said, this article can be further expanded (possibly retitled as well to 'Next-gen national broadband network (Singapore)') with various information such as the motivations for building up such a network; issues faced during implementation as OpenNet, be it regulatory issues or installation issues; questions on diversity and resilience of national networks (re:
Singtel#Bukit_Panjang_Exchange_fire); alternatives to NetLink Trust's network .
- On motivations of developing national fibre network: http://www.itu.int/net/wsis/stocktaking/docs/activities/1291981845/Towards%20a%20Next%20Generation%20Connected%20Nation_Singapore.pdf https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4d0fd3e2-1d2f-405b-b4b6-e1707282afa0 https://www.telecompaper.com/news/singapore-to-implement-next-generation-broadband-networks--510387
- On issues of rolling out the network: https://www.zdnet.com/article/opennet-fined-s750k-for-wiring-and-connecting-users-too-slowly/ https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ida-fines-netlink-trust-s450000-failing-meet-service-standards https://www.mci.gov.sg/pressroom/news-and-stories/pressroom/2012/9/mcis-response-to-pq-on-ngnbn-installation-by-opennet?page=82_6
- On the resilience of physical communications infrastructure in Singapore: https://www.mci.gov.sg/pressroom/news-and-stories/pressroom/2013/11/mcis-response-to-pq-on-the-fire-at-the-singtel-bukit-panjang-exchange https://www.telecomasia.net/content/singtel-exchange-fire-sparks-outages?src=related https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/record-s6m-fine-singtel-over-bukit-panjang-fire
- On establishing diversity and resilience of fibre networks in Singapore: https://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/sp-telecom-to-build-alternative-fibre-network-with-intelligence https://www.straitstimes.com/tech/sp-telecom-to-build-alternative-fibre-network – robertsky ( talk) 02:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- An extraction from your comment above reads A search on 'NetLink Trust' may not turn up anything significant, and you are !voting to keep an article that doesn’t turn up anything significant thus failing to satisfy
WP:ORG? Furthermore, what you just did by listing references in a disorderly manner is definitely intentionally disruptive, adjust that.
Celestina007 (
talk)
03:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ Celestina007: NetLink Trust may not turn up anything significant since majority of the work, and thus majority of the coverage, was done under its predecessor, OpenNet. You are deliberately focusing on one part of my response. Like I said, NetLink Trust and OpenNet for all intents and purposes are the same company, and should be considered as such. I vote for keep on basis of the bolded words in the previous statement. What may seems insignificant company to a non-Singapore based editor is significant to a Singapore based editor, given that this company is Singapore-based in nature, and focuses primarily on Singapore's national infrastructure with no or little international coverage. As for the sources above, if it seems disruptive to you, my apologies, but I do not believe so. It is in sequence to my response above, nonetheless I will reorganise it, hopefully sufficiently. – robertsky ( talk) 13:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- An extraction from your comment above reads A search on 'NetLink Trust' may not turn up anything significant, and you are !voting to keep an article that doesn’t turn up anything significant thus failing to satisfy
WP:ORG? Furthermore, what you just did by listing references in a disorderly manner is definitely intentionally disruptive, adjust that.
Celestina007 (
talk)
03:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per robertsky. Adding on past issues as OpenNet - [1], [2] (Note - The company, tasked to build the country’s national fibre optic network, had failed to connect up users fast enough, according to new standards set by the government regulator in January 2013.) and as NLT - [3], [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep It is listed and covered by many analysts. I can't access the analyst reports but there are many of them. Analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP and I am satisfied to assume that at least two of these reports provide Independent Content and in-depth analysis. Topic meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing ++ 18:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. A significant organisation for Singapore. Rathfelder ( talk) 07:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Per robertsky. -- SalmanZ ( talk) 13:36, 17 October 2020 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.