Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ActiveMedia

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. Sandstein (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ActiveMedia

ActiveMedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Image:ActiveMedia logo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

No sources to indicate notoriety. To keep needs WP:RS meshach (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) meshach (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete - Agree with nominator that sources are needed to establish notability. However, seems to me that 185,000 subscribers would make it notable. Surely sources could be found if someone would go and find them. --Richard (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• From activeMedia - We've added sources as requested, you can remove the deletion note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fradub (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment User then went and deleted the notice - I have restored Stephenb (Talk) 11:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based upon nomination statement - nominating a Article for Deletion 6 minutes after its creation citing that there is a lack of sources ? good grief ! Saying it was Spammy or Advertorial I could understand ... but lack of sources ? The Article creator has added external links and Ref's within 10.5 hours of your AfD'ing this article. I would request that in future the nom allow more than minutes countable on fingers and toes in between article creation and AfD nominations, to allow some time for an article natural growth. We must Assume Good Faith in that newly created Articles will improove. That being said, the Article creator should read WP:COI so that he/she does not go to far and create grounds for deletion. This is all stuph that could have been dealt with on the relevent talk page. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, promotional, lacks independent sources. Fails WP:CORP. As a capper has hateful little ™ symbols throughout like we're a press release repository. --Dhartung | Talk 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• From activeMedia - We've removed all the "TM" signs, even if I thought it would help for notability when everything is trademarked and registered according to law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fradub (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional material, and sources provided are not independent enough for my liking. No assertion that the awards that they've won or the organisations that they've joined are particularly notable at all. With that said, taking the article to AfD less than ten minutes after creation is a pretty bite-y thing to do, even if there is WP:COI issues. Lankiveil (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
• Delete - Potentially notable. However, they haven't actually won any awards and there are no reliable sources attesting to the notability of their products. It also fails WP:NPOV with no critical reviews - what are the problems (all such products have them)? There is also a clear WP:COI. If this is truly notable an independent person will come along and write a less promotional piece. TerriersFan (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2007 (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.