Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CompoCom

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 speedy delete as pure advertisement. Non admin closure. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CompoCom[edit]

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

No third party reliable sources found, so this company fails WP:CORP. An IP removed my Prod without addressing the problem. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (make that practically speedy) as blatant advertizing.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. No indication of importance. I was unable to find any third-party coverage of the company. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 19:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^T · C 19:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as zero claim to notability. Also close to speedy on the blatant advertising front. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as pure blatant advertising. So tagged. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2010 (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.