Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faceo


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 06:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Faceo
Blatant advertising for a facility management company. Text appears like a copy/paste from a promotional brochure. Not surpisingly, the contributor's username is User:Faceo. Conflict of interest anyone? Netsnipe 15:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The corporation has notability.  But this article is pure advert and should go.  NPOV it is not.  Advertorial it is.  What they ought to do is fire their PR agency for that one! Fiddle Faddle 15:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Apart from the obvious advertisement tone of the article, I don't actually see notability for the company as per WP:CORP. Can't find any independent articles about the company, and not on the Forbes Global 2000. -- N  scheffey (T/C) 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not arguing for the article to be kept - it's an awful article and a rehash of some datasheets, but Hoovers free fact sheet shows that Faceo was created from two notable parent corporations. While that does not make it inherently notable itself, it is likely that sufficient notability is asserted. Fiddle Faddle 15:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hmmm...User:Faceo just spam-linked Facility management. Reverted and warned, but still no response to the AfD or User_Talk. -- Netsnipe 16:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this isn't the right article for this corporation. The creator isn't really helping his case, either. --Coredesat talk 21:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:I am in charge of PR within Faceo. We thought that it could be interesting for Wikipedia users to know of Faceo, a company created only six years ago, and which is one of the few players in our field to have a presence across several countries in Europe. Our intention was to be informative, and not to advertise; if you read our article, we put some facts on our company and gave some definition on what the terms mean. You may not share our viewpoint, but we did not put the same information as in our website: www.faceo.com.  Frankly I wonder how we should speak about ourselves in a more "neutral" tone. Regards,Amaury de Varax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.23.24.36 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: Thanks for the disclosing your relation with Faceo, though it does pose a significant conflict of interest problem. Wikipedia policy frowns heavily on individuals/organisations writing about themselves and for good reason. For example, your current article sounds too much like an advertisment since there are too many biased first-person statements such as "Faceo’s expertise in the management of soft services allows our customers to optimize cost reductions within a building." This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for self-promotion. Netsnipe 10:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:We take good note of your comments. Leave us a few days to take your comments into account.We will rewrite the content of the document accordingly. G.Frediani
 * Comment: Thanks for listening. Might I also suggest that whoever doing the rewrite should take the following guidelines into account. Notability_%28companies_and_corporations%29 and Autobiography. Thanks, -- Netsnipe 12:47, 28 June 2006 (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.