Deletion of Fish Information and Services

Comment: this user: {{user|Spindoctor69}} is a single purpose account here and on at least two other wikipedias (Simple and Spanish) having put up this article on those projects too.  Per Wikipedia:Spam: ''There are two types of wikispam. These are advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spamming''.  In my view this is an advertisement masquerading as an article.  There are no reliable sources to establish notability per .  I do not think deleting articles on non-notable companies puts us at risk of becoming like  the ''Académie française'' - in fact we run the opposite risk if we do not have some criteria for inclusion - hence our development of the notability guideline for companies and our |'''policy''' against advertising. Essentially if this company is as notable as claimed, including a market leader in its segment, that fact will be reported by reliable sources, those sources can be cited and our guideline on notability will be met.  Without those sources to support the claims, I stand by my accusations of spam and advertising - the use of wikipedia to promote a non-notable company
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:COMPANY||WP:ADVERTISING)

Comment: fails the notability guidelines for |companies and |web content as it has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. What coverage there is is either advertising or trivial references as a collater of fish prices (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:k0Qzjctj_EEJ:www.ffa.int/system/files/TMN.update.2001.10.pdf+%22Fish+Information+and+Services%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=63&gl=au example). Re the above comments - a future article in a Norwegian newspaper might qualify as a secondary source, but as it has not yet been published its content cannot be assessed. If reliable sources are expected soon perhaps |userfying the article might be worthwhile until those sources are available. I agree Alexa rankings don't indicate much, and that apparent advertising can be rewritten. But these are side issues - the key point is the absence of independent sources to verify notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:WEB||WP:USERFY)

Comment: The lack of |citations from |reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the |verifiability policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: based on my being almost undecided.  Googling it produces few results, but http://www.fis.com/fis/mediakit/2007/overview-e.html shows a not insubstantial organisation, though I do appreciate that this may contain trade puffery.  The putative Norwegian article will be enough to tip me into a simple ''keep''.  I do recommend that the article is "de-advertorialed" and that other |reliable sources are found for it.  If the consensus is to delete I recommend temporary userfication to allow more work to be done before republishing.  Just losing the article seems to me to be silly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: as per . I note a considerable amount of POV pushing related to this indicating possible |conflict of interest
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Spam (WP:SPAM||WP:COI)