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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frishay[edit]

Frishay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Extremely minor company of 16 people that obviously fails WP:NCORP. The refs are profiles/databases, its own website/partners, and minor comparisons in non-RS sites, e.g., the third ref is apparently has 770K creators and states that We strive to build a platform that serves its Creators before anyone else, with no editorial policies, thus it appears to be a questionable user-generated site. All of those obviously fail WP:NCORP. WP:BEFORE found trivial mentions and databases but nothing that is SIGCOV. VickKiang (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, whose characterization I find complete and accurate. Ovinus (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2022 (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.