Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefly (company)


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  11:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Firefly (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The twelve sources shown are diverse, have editorial oversight and are substantial; I'm seeing additional and different coverage in 2019. Here I'm also seeing staff pieces at Forbes where usually we see contributor articles, suggesting the company really warrants that level of coverage. Worth keeping on the merits. DavidWestT (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I see you approved the article at AfC. It is difficult to judge the value and reliability of the sources, but I note that the company only started up in 2017. The company installs cartop screens at a single garage in San Francisco, and its 110,000 hours of drive time is a minute number, representing for example, 1100 cars at 100 hours each. This is a small, local company and I don't think it has a place in Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. Sources are passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Also fails WP:PROMO. Launch publicity does not equate to encyclopedia notability in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Below the line comment). Poking at this one a bit more, it does look like WSJ covered them a few times (e.g. here: ) at length). I see some other in-depth coverage as well that's not on the page at.

I respect your opinions, though, on any consensus. DavidWestT (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, at least not yet. All the refs are about its own publicity for itself, and WP shouldn't be adding to them.  DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 27 January 2019 (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.