- 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 keep. Davewild ( talk) 06:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Commonground/MGS
- Commonground/MGS ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is probably going to be a train wreck of an AfD, but I am not convinced an article on this organisation can be improved to the point of acceptance. The article fails to say what the organisation actually does and the 25 citations in the lead are a cliche of paid editing, looking closer they appear to all be only tangential or press releases. I note the comment in one says "While I certainly wish Mr. Islam and Mr. Wright all the best of luck, their enterprise is by no means the largest multicultural agency, nor is it the first minority-owned multicultural marketing holding company; not by more than a decade." I smell paid advocacy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Covered in reliable sources. Claims of unimprovability or unmaintainability are not supported by the article's edit history: nobody has even tried to fix it. Obviously a bad article, but equally obviously not what AfD is for. Colapeninsula ( talk) 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Nobody has even tried to fix it" - yes, and that includes you. If you can, I'm happy to speedy close this. I've had a headache trying. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - meets GNG. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP —Мандичка YO 😜 18:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. Look, let's take the citation overkill on the lead. [1] - marked as "Advertising". [2] - the "AD" in the source name is a clue. [3] - looks like a press release, [4] - "Mediapost Agency Daily" - press release. [5] - press release. And they're all from the same date - well that's because they are all repeating the same press release. That does not meet GNG. I could go on with the other 20 sources but I'd lose the will to live. And the "AfD is not cleanup" mantra doesn't really work in practice, if you don't clean up stuff, readers will look at it, think "what a load of rubbish Wikipedia is" and slink off elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- LOL the "advertising" tag in the NY Times article is because that is the subject, NOT because it's a paid advertisement!! Just like this article is tagged as "food." (Please try not to eat your screen.) It's an ad agency, so obviously it's going to also be covered by advertising industry publications. —Мандичка YO 😜 21:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- KEEP First source I clicked on was an in-depth profile in The New York Times. I disagree that "AFD is not cleanup" from the perspective that some articles are good AFD candidates because of WP:TNT if they are hopelessly promotional. In this page however, the unsourced promotion was easy to cleanup and the remaining stub looks fine. CorporateM ( Talk) 06:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, spam. Sources do not hold up. Stifle ( talk) 14:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - not sure about notability (borderline case). But at least the references in this article (and Manuel E. Machado and Al Garcia-Serra) need cleanup, if the article is kept. This is just WP:CITESPAM from a (likely paid) undisclosed COI editor. GermanJoe ( talk) 16:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - standard searches revealed enough substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources to show notability of this company. New York Times article and Ad Week article just as a start. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. Davewild ( talk) 06:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Commonground/MGS
- Commonground/MGS ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is probably going to be a train wreck of an AfD, but I am not convinced an article on this organisation can be improved to the point of acceptance. The article fails to say what the organisation actually does and the 25 citations in the lead are a cliche of paid editing, looking closer they appear to all be only tangential or press releases. I note the comment in one says "While I certainly wish Mr. Islam and Mr. Wright all the best of luck, their enterprise is by no means the largest multicultural agency, nor is it the first minority-owned multicultural marketing holding company; not by more than a decade." I smell paid advocacy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Covered in reliable sources. Claims of unimprovability or unmaintainability are not supported by the article's edit history: nobody has even tried to fix it. Obviously a bad article, but equally obviously not what AfD is for. Colapeninsula ( talk) 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Nobody has even tried to fix it" - yes, and that includes you. If you can, I'm happy to speedy close this. I've had a headache trying. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - meets GNG. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP —Мандичка YO 😜 18:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. Look, let's take the citation overkill on the lead. [1] - marked as "Advertising". [2] - the "AD" in the source name is a clue. [3] - looks like a press release, [4] - "Mediapost Agency Daily" - press release. [5] - press release. And they're all from the same date - well that's because they are all repeating the same press release. That does not meet GNG. I could go on with the other 20 sources but I'd lose the will to live. And the "AfD is not cleanup" mantra doesn't really work in practice, if you don't clean up stuff, readers will look at it, think "what a load of rubbish Wikipedia is" and slink off elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk) 18:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- LOL the "advertising" tag in the NY Times article is because that is the subject, NOT because it's a paid advertisement!! Just like this article is tagged as "food." (Please try not to eat your screen.) It's an ad agency, so obviously it's going to also be covered by advertising industry publications. —Мандичка YO 😜 21:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- KEEP First source I clicked on was an in-depth profile in The New York Times. I disagree that "AFD is not cleanup" from the perspective that some articles are good AFD candidates because of WP:TNT if they are hopelessly promotional. In this page however, the unsourced promotion was easy to cleanup and the remaining stub looks fine. CorporateM ( Talk) 06:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, spam. Sources do not hold up. Stifle ( talk) 14:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - not sure about notability (borderline case). But at least the references in this article (and Manuel E. Machado and Al Garcia-Serra) need cleanup, if the article is kept. This is just WP:CITESPAM from a (likely paid) undisclosed COI editor. GermanJoe ( talk) 16:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - standard searches revealed enough substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources to show notability of this company. New York Times article and Ad Week article just as a start. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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.