Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FairCom

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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FairCom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly promotional/vanity article with 90% of sources pointing to company's own website or its press releases. Fails GNG. DOCUMENT★ERROR 03:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. VikÞor | Talk 04:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. VikÞor | Talk 04:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 06:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional articles can be stubbed; this is not one of those cases. I'm not seeing nearly the level of coverage needed to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Nonnotable subject with no content worth merging or keeping otherwise. Deadbeef 06:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A straight press release. Good candidate for G11 speedy. That it was created by a spa reinforces that impression. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.