Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefly Communications

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. slakr^\ talk / 04:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly Communications[edit]

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

Advertising. Not notable. Awards are usual industry ones or not highly placed. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. almost all the sources are PRweb. also lacks reliable indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Note that the sources are PRWeek (an actual RS for news relating to the PR industry), not PRWeb (a press release distribution service). The article's creator, Mattgirling is obviously not a COI editor. Still, it would be nice to see greater breadth of sources. BlueSalix (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been a bit strong to call it an advert, but it is the lack of any real distinguishing factor that makes this article and all the similar ones so dull. Maybe they have done something interesting but you wouldn't know it from the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. IMHO: A clear advert! "The article's creator, Mattgirling is obviously not a COI editor" - Ye-a...right, and may I politely inquire why "a musician and sound engineer" got so suddenly enthusiastic about a "European-based public relations consultancy"? --Murus (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa whoa whoa! What happened to assuming good faith, Murus? What I do has sod all to do with that article—it's just one article I created. Besides, a conflict of interests here would only be a problem if I was pushing some sort of bias which, by looking at my edits (they were a long time ago), I clearly wasn't. I've got no opinion on whether or not the article is kept or deleted, but I think it'd be better if you didn't make silly assertions like that. matt (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "silly assertions". It is very unfortunate that you have decided to become a Wikipedia administrator without first familiarizing yourself with WP:PERSONAL. I respectfully request an apology from you, and please kindly stop harassing the deletion discussion participants. --Murus (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2014 (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.