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. Mr.Z-man 21:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)reply
There's sources, yes, but upon closer inspection do they fall short of
WP:CORP? Some fail
WP:CORPDEPTH e.g. Advertising Age: employee moving (and as an Advertising Age employee that's a primary source), Unilever PR: mentions of partnerships) . (nom clarified per feedback, see comment below) Widefox;
talk 11:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The Guardian source has no mention of TMG so doesn't count for notability (no depth at all). (That sentence also borders on
WP:SYN and should be split into 2 sentences or the source removed as I've already done for clarity.)
"Primary sources: 3. Advertising Age, 6. & 7. Thoughtful Media Group. 4. may or may not be an RS blog. There's currently no depth." per
WP:CORPDEPTH
e.g. 3. Advertising Age - it is written about an Advertising Age employee, primary, non-independent and doesn't count per CORPDEPTH ("routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel")
6 & 7 (are the same url, now combined) primary, 7. fails verification
(nom clarified per feedback) Widefox;
talk 11:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment The remarks by Ssilvers are a bit misleading. The Bloomberg "feature" looks like user-generated content. The "article" in Xconomy looks like a brief press release. The Guardian article does not even mention the subject of the article. The Yahoo "article" is an obvious press release. The PR Week article only briefly mentions the subject. Etc.
Logical Cowboy (
talk) 15:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete This boutique ad agency may be notable some day, but it's not there yet. Press references are tiny mentions or PR-generated.
WP:NOTYET applies.
John Nagle (
talk) 19:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Michig (
talk) 06:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Michig (
talk) 07:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Contrary to claims above: There is no "feature" in Bloomberg, just a listing; Xconomy is a routine announcement, not independent coverage; Advertising Age is a routine announcement, AdAge talking about one of their own, not independent; the article in The Guardian makes no mention of Thoughtful Media Group; the "article on the subject at Yahoo Finance" is a press release; PR Week is a trivial mention. This is an advert created by a shill. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 02:24, 14 December 2014 (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.