Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FirstCom


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 14:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

FirstCom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a non-notable company, largely penned by representatives of the company and written like an advertisement. I can find no evidence the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. In fact, I can find no secondary sources on this company, so there would be nothing to build a better article out of. Cited sources are either from the company's website or that of its parent company. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Found no relevant secondary sources (many were talking about an Irish marketing agency). Article is almost entirely written by a single editor, the majority of whose contributions have been to that article. Fails WP:ORG and probably WP:PLUG too. -crh23 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Page is actively being improved over time. Secondary sources are available, and being added. Would appreciate editorial assistance to improve page over deletion of page. - ReceptFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptfc (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 April 2016‎
 * This account is an SPA associated with the subject of the article. -- Rrburke (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 01:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is obvious enough, simply not convincing enough for solid notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:19, 6 April 2016 (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.