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.
Delete: Declined at AfC and then moved to mainspace on a new account's 11th edit. Nothing in the article is indicative of this being more than a marketing agency going about its business in its chosen market. The given references (locations, investments, inclusion in a "Clutch 100" fastest-growing list, intern scheme announcement, etc.) fall under trivial coverage at
WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find another recent industry award (
"best performance marketing agency in South Africa" at a Markets African Excellence Awards) but
nothing indicative of attained
notability here.
AllyD (
talk)
07:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - The article does not
speak for itself and explain how the company passes
corporate notability, which is based on what third parties say about the company. This article is about what the company says about itself, which is common, but does not pass
corporate notability. If the proponents will identify
three sources, an analysis of those sources can be performed. The conduct of the proponents is typical either of
ultras, fanatical editors, or of
paid editors; but corporations don't have
ultras, so draw your conclusion. The edit summary Perfectly Written and informative. is a red flag in itself.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment to
User:Timtrent - Be careful what you wish for. Don't nominate anything with 23 references for
G7. It might be deleted. It will then spend seven days at
Deletion Review, and then be Relisted by
DRV, and then spend seven days at
AFD anyway that you had tried to avoid. This time, you didn't get your wish, and that means only seven days rather than fourteen.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:57, 20 October 2023 (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.
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.
Delete: Declined at AfC and then moved to mainspace on a new account's 11th edit. Nothing in the article is indicative of this being more than a marketing agency going about its business in its chosen market. The given references (locations, investments, inclusion in a "Clutch 100" fastest-growing list, intern scheme announcement, etc.) fall under trivial coverage at
WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find another recent industry award (
"best performance marketing agency in South Africa" at a Markets African Excellence Awards) but
nothing indicative of attained
notability here.
AllyD (
talk)
07:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - The article does not
speak for itself and explain how the company passes
corporate notability, which is based on what third parties say about the company. This article is about what the company says about itself, which is common, but does not pass
corporate notability. If the proponents will identify
three sources, an analysis of those sources can be performed. The conduct of the proponents is typical either of
ultras, fanatical editors, or of
paid editors; but corporations don't have
ultras, so draw your conclusion. The edit summary Perfectly Written and informative. is a red flag in itself.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment to
User:Timtrent - Be careful what you wish for. Don't nominate anything with 23 references for
G7. It might be deleted. It will then spend seven days at
Deletion Review, and then be Relisted by
DRV, and then spend seven days at
AFD anyway that you had tried to avoid. This time, you didn't get your wish, and that means only seven days rather than fourteen.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:57, 20 October 2023 (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.