Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Fiber

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. czar 13:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Fiber

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article fails WP:ORG . The majority of the information available comes from primary or promotional sources, such as the company own website and business announcements. The company short-lived existence (2016–2021) and limited scope as a subsidiary focused on FTTH infrastructure in only 29 cities do not demonstrate sufficient historical or societal impact to warrant a standalone article. Nxcrypto Message 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and Italy. Nxcrypto Message 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose, Flash Fiber and FiberCop are two separate companies, and also meet the eligibility requirements. InterComMan (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, article reliance on primary sources like the company website and promotional materials are failing to establish sufficient notability or societal impact. Nxcrypto Message 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ORG. Just to be clearer, all of the sources in the article are primary sources. A few such sources are okay when secondary sources verify that the company is notable. The biggest problem with finding new sources is that the company is defunct. I'm not sure why this page was created in the first place, but the new user might be mistaken about what we are. We are not an electronic version of a gazetteer. Bearian (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the research the company is genuine but lacks significant coverage in reputed media sources. The key issues are: Reliance on Primary Sources – Most references come from the company's website and promotional content. No substantial third-party sources verify its notability. This supports deletion due to insufficient independent verification of notability. YoYoSuryaPatra‬ → talk 21:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoYoSuryaPatra (talk • contribs) [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.