Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flexpoint Ford

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. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flexpoint Ford

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

This topic does not meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG: a good faith search on this topic brings up nothing but press releases from the company itself, and press releases disguised as news items (e.g. PR Wire). A link on the article to a NYT Profile of a company partner includes no information about the company itself. That Gerald Ford (not the former-president) is a limited partner is irrelevant, as is having a "prominent employee" (who seems to only be prominent for playing poker). Notability is not inherited through association. Additionally, the creator of this article is himself an employee of the company (see [1]. His only 3 edits on the encyclopedia were to create this article and place a link to it on the list of equity firms article.

In short: an article created through a COI account, on a topic with no evident substantive support in 3rd party sources. AstroCog (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - My first Google News searches provided several results, with PR and news articles. I don't believe Wikipedia always considers bizjournals.com to be an in-depth source, but I found minor menton here, unsubstantial anyway. Minor mention in a reliable source, CNN, but minor mention and mentions a subsidiary of theirs, which mustn't be notable either. The company seems to have gained more attention through their associates, Steve Begleiter and Gerald J. Ford, with an article here (again, reliable source but minor mention). More minor mentions like this one and bizjournals.com links, not much in-depth. Final Google News searches provided nothing else different. Google Books didn't provide anything good either. As always, no prejudice towards a new article in the future. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING - The articles more like an advert than an encyclopedic article.

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:34, 6 November 2013 (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.