Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Information and Services
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
— User:Euryalus, 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:CORP||WP:WEB||WP:USERFY (Wikipedia:Notability)