Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torque FKM

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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Torque FKM

Torque FKM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I was tempted to give this a speedy as non-notable company, but I'm not entirely sure about it. So for your consideration... JulesN Talk 20:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, the only sources available are affiliated, such as press releases. <eleland/talkedits> 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. These vanity pages are getting annoying.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete - non-notable business; I would have supported a speedy, but let the process proceed. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Oh, would you look at that? This WAS speedily deleted TODAY for being blatant advertising! And the same people restarted it!--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral comment Speedy Delete A7 - This same page was already speedied, and recreated. Company may be marginally notable in the Houston area, but the COI makes me suspicious of spam. Plvekamp (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC) - Originator has had 4 days to remedy notability concern, not resolved. Spam suspicion is confirmed, I think Plvekamp (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Yes CyberGhostFace, it was speedily deleted earlier, and justifiably so. We have edited the content to better fit the standards set forth by Wikipedia. I am currently gathering information that will prove Torque FKM's notability, but if is deemed unsatisfactory I guess it will be deleted. TorqueFKM (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete obvious spam ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment For those of you who feel this is spam- as I understand it, we took out all copy that may be interpreted as an advertisement and rewrote in a more neutral tone. As for notability- an honest question here- would being the interactive arm of one of the largest independent agencies in the US, as well as the largest agency in Houston be considered notable? Please understand, we are not trying to spam Wikipedia and we want to follow the guidelines. Any help to point us in the right direction would be appreciated. TorqueFKM (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If the company is truly notable, you need to cite reliable 3rd party sources. Self-published articles like yours are common on Wikipedia, rarely notable, and as you can see many editors keep a sharp eye out for them. Plvekamp (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's only two pages on google, and nothing to suggest that its notable.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete, salt, block creator for inappropriate user name. That about covers it. Qworty (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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.