Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floship

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. Kurykh (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floship

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

Clear company advertising, which alone violates our policies, since all sources contain the classic signs of PR, regardless if intended or wherever published, because the contents still show unsatisfactory signs by our policies, since they are only business announcements, mentions, company plans or activities and similar; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone and that's exactly what our policies and standards show and, for example, WP:CORPDEPTH notes "[Unacceptable sources are]: Simple announcements or statements, press releases, anything where the company talks about itself or anything published by or for the company with clear". IN fact, a simple search for the company at News found nothing but clearly labeled press releases, company advertised announcements, financial statements and similar, showing no exceptions to our policies. Next, the history shows clear violations of policy WP:PAID given they're clear COI-involved. Our policies have never negotiated with webhosting simply because there was never any intentions of allowing it at all, which still applies now. Although a user has denied any payment, there is still clear COI concerns by our policies and, although it was assured to be fixed, nothing has happened, at least not significantly to outweigh deletion. SwisterTwister talk 13:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- un unremarkable startup going about its business. The awards/listings are insignificant (Red Herring is pay-per-play).$1M in funding is minuscule, while coverage is PR driven. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2017 (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.