The Admin NawlinWiki speedily deleted this page, citing the A7 rule, which says that the organization being written about lacked notability. I contacted the admin on their talk page to try to address the issue, but I was unable to resolve it there. I think that the reason catchword is notable, is that it was one of the first companies in the naming industry and has had a ton of press that features them, some of which is actually only about catchword. Here is a list of all the articles that feature catchword:
http://catchwordbranding.com/about/press/ and this one, by the Oakland Tribune exclusively focuses on them:
http://catchwordbranding.com/coverage/CatchwordProfileOaklandTribune2004.pdf This very recent radio story is also about them:
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/title-tk/ They appear on this list of notable naming companies on the product naming page:
/info/en/?search=Product_naming#Notable_naming_companies Also, consider that there are other naming companies that have wiki pages, such as
A Hundred Monkeys and
Lexicon Branding.
Jrendleman (
talk) 21:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)reply
List at
AfD. I'm not seeing much in the way of sources, but I saw enough through a Google search that I think an AfD discussion is warranted. I haven't seen the article content, so I'm sure the deleting admin had an understandable rationale, but given existing sources I think this is best suited for AfD.
North of Eden (
talk) 01:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I was recently editing the Wikipedia page for catchword branding. I noticed that a few days ago you deleted the page, citing the A7 rule, which is meant to prevent organizations that are not notable from having pages about them. Catchword is a very notable naming agency with offices in Oakland and NYC. You can check out their website at catchwordbranding.com. Was the page deleted because of the edits I made? If so, is it possible to revert the article to a previous version? Sorry if I made a mistake. I'm new to Wikipedia and I was just trying to make their page more up to date.
Jrendleman (
talk) 01:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The sources cited in the article were about branding in general, and quoted or mentioned Catchword, but were not *about* Catchword. That's not the sort of
sourcing needed to show
notability.
NawlinWiki (
talk) 19:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn. The article cited several reliable sources, so speedy deletion under {{db-a7}} was inapplicable.
Quoting from the deleting admin, "The sources cited in the article were about branding in general, and quoted or mentioned Catchword, but were not *about* Catchword." But A7 requires a much lower standard:
"No indication of importance". The sources asserted notability even though most were not focused on Catchword (the Stanford article did focus on Catchword).
Here are three sources that are specifically about Catchword:
Maria Cypher, the founder and director of the naming agency Catchword, which named the McDonald’s McBistro sandwich line, will tell you that names “give us a shared understanding of what something is.”
...
Every naming agency keeps a list of its discards in a computer program. These are then classified by message (at Catchword); by distinctiveness, appeal, memorability and concept (at Interbrand); or by whatever other way the namers might want to retrieve them. Catchword has 650 of these categorized lists. And many of the names will be recycled, which suggests that there is a kind of Platonic ideal of good names, independent of products good or bad — a name so good that it could work, if not on anything, than at least on many things.
Overturn and list at AfD. The two NY Times plus one LA Times articles are more than enough to make A7 not apply. There's a pretty good chance this will survive AfD. --
RoySmith(talk) 12:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn - sources are way too much for A7. I don't see a bureaucratic need to send it to AfD unless someone actually believes it should be deleted.
WilyD 10:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn and list at AFD. The sources I've seen are poor, and are just mentioning the company rather than being about it, as such. That said, they're enough that there ought to have been community discussion rather than the blunt instrument of CSD A7.
Lankiveil(
speak to me) 03:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC).reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The Admin NawlinWiki speedily deleted this page, citing the A7 rule, which says that the organization being written about lacked notability. I contacted the admin on their talk page to try to address the issue, but I was unable to resolve it there. I think that the reason catchword is notable, is that it was one of the first companies in the naming industry and has had a ton of press that features them, some of which is actually only about catchword. Here is a list of all the articles that feature catchword:
http://catchwordbranding.com/about/press/ and this one, by the Oakland Tribune exclusively focuses on them:
http://catchwordbranding.com/coverage/CatchwordProfileOaklandTribune2004.pdf This very recent radio story is also about them:
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/title-tk/ They appear on this list of notable naming companies on the product naming page:
/info/en/?search=Product_naming#Notable_naming_companies Also, consider that there are other naming companies that have wiki pages, such as
A Hundred Monkeys and
Lexicon Branding.
Jrendleman (
talk) 21:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)reply
List at
AfD. I'm not seeing much in the way of sources, but I saw enough through a Google search that I think an AfD discussion is warranted. I haven't seen the article content, so I'm sure the deleting admin had an understandable rationale, but given existing sources I think this is best suited for AfD.
North of Eden (
talk) 01:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)reply
I was recently editing the Wikipedia page for catchword branding. I noticed that a few days ago you deleted the page, citing the A7 rule, which is meant to prevent organizations that are not notable from having pages about them. Catchword is a very notable naming agency with offices in Oakland and NYC. You can check out their website at catchwordbranding.com. Was the page deleted because of the edits I made? If so, is it possible to revert the article to a previous version? Sorry if I made a mistake. I'm new to Wikipedia and I was just trying to make their page more up to date.
Jrendleman (
talk) 01:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The sources cited in the article were about branding in general, and quoted or mentioned Catchword, but were not *about* Catchword. That's not the sort of
sourcing needed to show
notability.
NawlinWiki (
talk) 19:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn. The article cited several reliable sources, so speedy deletion under {{db-a7}} was inapplicable.
Quoting from the deleting admin, "The sources cited in the article were about branding in general, and quoted or mentioned Catchword, but were not *about* Catchword." But A7 requires a much lower standard:
"No indication of importance". The sources asserted notability even though most were not focused on Catchword (the Stanford article did focus on Catchword).
Here are three sources that are specifically about Catchword:
Maria Cypher, the founder and director of the naming agency Catchword, which named the McDonald’s McBistro sandwich line, will tell you that names “give us a shared understanding of what something is.”
...
Every naming agency keeps a list of its discards in a computer program. These are then classified by message (at Catchword); by distinctiveness, appeal, memorability and concept (at Interbrand); or by whatever other way the namers might want to retrieve them. Catchword has 650 of these categorized lists. And many of the names will be recycled, which suggests that there is a kind of Platonic ideal of good names, independent of products good or bad — a name so good that it could work, if not on anything, than at least on many things.
Overturn and list at AfD. The two NY Times plus one LA Times articles are more than enough to make A7 not apply. There's a pretty good chance this will survive AfD. --
RoySmith(talk) 12:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn - sources are way too much for A7. I don't see a bureaucratic need to send it to AfD unless someone actually believes it should be deleted.
WilyD 10:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Overturn and list at AFD. The sources I've seen are poor, and are just mentioning the company rather than being about it, as such. That said, they're enough that there ought to have been community discussion rather than the blunt instrument of CSD A7.
Lankiveil(
speak to me) 03:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC).reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.