Talk:PAETEC Holding Corp.

Untitled

from VfD:

Non-notable, six year old telecom company. Yawn. Claims to serve entire nation, but of all the cities listed, only one sorry, two is west of the Mississippi. If I had a nickel for every company that says they are a US telecom company... Niteowlneils 22:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity (more or less). Whoops... Keep, I make mistakes now and then, this was one. Article needs expansion. Wyss 00:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• 58,000 google hits, US$289 million in revenue for 2003. I say keep--seems to fall above previous criteria for keeping companies. Meelar (talk) 00:28, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Competitors AT&T, Sprint, MCI, and Verizon each had about 10-30 times the revenue--$20-70 billion. Niteowlneils 17:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• keep Yuckfoo 00:53, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: An article on the topic would be fine. This, however, is a factoid, not an article. If not expanded to be a reasonable article by the end of VfD, delete. Geogre 04:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Must say I disagree. Certainly stubby, but acceptable, and it will be fleshed out eventually. But to each his own. Meelar (talk) 05:29, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Big enough to merit an article. This one is kind of pointless, but there's nothing wrong with keeping it around until someone expands it. Tuf-Kat 19:04, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability has already been demonstrated above, the fact that it's only a stub doesn't mean it should be erased. Frankly I think even listing it here was very bizarre. ("Yawn"? A $289 million business isn't notable? Huh??) DreamGuy 09:17, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - What DreamGuy said immediately above. -- Dominus 04:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\^talk 18:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Apropos - I missed any references to national service claims but the article just looks like the facts to me. JimScott 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

end moved discussion

==

JoeBrennan (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC) The meaning or origin of the peculiar name should be added. I don't see it on the company web page. Noted also, the name is sometimes written all-caps and sometimes in the form PaeTec (e.g. see http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=209.2.0.0).

PaeTec is correct prior to the USLEC merger. The name officially changed to PAETEC at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torimagic (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PAETEC Holding Corp.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071017150446/http://rbj.net:80/fullarticle.cfm?sdid=69453 to http://www.rbj.net/fullarticle.cfm?sdid=69453

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)