Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlueFocus Communication Group
I've looked at the article and the references in some detail since it is the focus of a brouhaha elsewhere that I am peripherally involved in, and I confess I am having difficulty with it. I'd expect more flesh and more in the way of referencing for an organisation where the references used suggest it to be fast growing. I acknowledge that it was created as a start and in a single edit. I hope further expansion is forthcoming and I shall see what I can find myself assuming it is kept and someone reminds me to look){{pb}}{{pb}}The references aren't what they first appear to be, and I can see why the nom came to the conclusions they did about them. A first look suggests them to be PR, but the advertising and agency world is peculiar in that this is what it generates. I'm used to the titles the references come from. My employment was as a user of this type of organisation, and I see these sources as passing . '''Context''' is important here. I also see significant coverage in them. That is is 'unusual'  style coverage is unimportant. This is what this style of source ''would'' say about a PR organisation. Based upon pure policy it passes 
— User:Timtrent, 18:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:CORP (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)