Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast Web Media (2nd nomination)
- 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. After two relistings, the consensus appears to be against the article again, and the analysis by Smerdis of Tlön appears to support that conclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fast Web Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast Web Media (resulted in speedy delete) Seems to be reasonably cleaned up, but I'm not convinced it makes it on the wp:corp notability front. --fvw* 12:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Werneth (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC) The company is linked to from a Wikipedia entry relating to Des Kelly, this shorter entry was submitted to cover off the link. Additional information of notability could be added in respect to national awards won but these were not put in initially in case they were considered advertising. Advice appreciated.[reply]
Werneth (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Added references to Fast Search & Transfer and Microsoft to increase notability[reply]
- Weak keep. Looks notable to me. [1] [2] [3] [4] JulesH (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not enough reliable sources. Alexius08 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The person before you mentioned 4 sources. Why are those not reliable in your opinion? - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy Pounce! 06:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this is an obvious example of WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After reading the article fairly carefully to check if I missed something, I still have no idea what this business actually does, other than claiming to be a full service digital agency, whatever that means. The "references" given are to an internal site and to a list of regulatory filings: they do not obviously support the assertions made in the article. This is a non-notable, non-consumer tech business, and as such it fits the profile. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2008 (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.