Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cordiant

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 of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cordiant

The pages reads like an adevert for Cordiant, even cleaned up I don't think it really has a place  Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - though questionable notability, Google does provide 3,200 hits from a variety of sources [1]; IMHO just needs a very major cleanup. ikh (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 01:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS, no evidence of notability--TBCTaLk?!? 01:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per WP:CORP. A better google search is [2], which yields 2,600 hits. Some are job openings, but others seem to be news snippets about who is now using Cordiant Technologies. Very very marginal. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tree Biting Conspiracy, if it were to be kept it would need serious revision as it is copyvio now [3] .--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If it is a copyvio, it can merit a speedy delete per CSD 8--TBCTaLk?!? 02:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I believe that only applies to articles created in the last 48 hours. This was created in April. It should also be noted that this article is the only contribution that the author has made.--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed, sorry about the misleading comment. I had assumed it was created recently as most articles that resemble the one nominated are usually deleted within days of creation.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, fails WP:CORP. --Coredesat talk 04:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. ---CH 06:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone makes a non copyvio article at the /Temp page. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Please take another look at the article. The copyvio argument no longer applies, as the article is no longer a copyvio. I think the company is quite large. TruthbringerToronto 00:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I still am not sure that this company is notable. While a google for cordiant turns up plenty of results, many are for cordiant communications group, which was one of the top advertising companies in the world at one point but is no longer in existence. Until I see some evidence that this company is notable (stock market indices,company ranking indices, etc.) I can not change my vote to keep.--Joe Jklin (T C) 05:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete one result on Google News, other than that main results on Google aren't evidence of notability. Yonatanh 15:08, 29 June 2006 (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.