Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moosylvania Marketing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Sr13 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moosylvania Marketing

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

Spamvertisment for a marketing agency of questionable notability. Article claims it's "currently the largest independently-owned agency in the United States"; Googling "Moosylvania Marketing" gives around 60 unique Google results, mostly business directories. Masaruemoto 01:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 01:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Apparently this slipped back through the timestream from the 2012 edition of Wikipedia. We should send it back. - Richfife 01:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. User:Rayth is making an attempt at astroturfing. Spam links are being removed. DarkAudit 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • delete its all spam to me. BH (T|C) 01:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

*delete - Tried & failed to make the article worthwhile - Tiswas(t) 09:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • comment - (I'm slightly ambivalent about this) - there is mention (and verification of awards). Just because an article is about a company, it does not make it spam. It isn't overtly promotional, but could do with a POV check - Tiswas(t) 09:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: Well, it seems really to pass WP:CORP with 2 awards. Carlosguitar 14:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I was surprised, but upon review, it looks like awards are not mentioned as criteria in WP:CORP. ~ Infrangible 02:43, 9
  • Reply comment: it is true, but can be these awards the "secondary sources" in the criterion? According to WP:CORP: "include reliable published works in all forms", and awards are not in the except list. Carlosguitar 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I beleive there are awards for everything. Even if the award itself is notable, then the awardees may not be. And even more so the other way around. Each source needs to be judged by itself but to me two awards from the same source isn't "sources". Still if it can be properly expanded it may live. Maybe a statement from Bacardi (unreferenced fact) or facts about what made the agency Notable enough to be awarded could help. JAGulin 11:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, could you please explain specifically why you believe it to be spam? Rayth 05:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with the facts in the original suggestion by Masaruemoto. It's not Notable as is. I wouldn't call it spam at it seems to fall into "good faith" (see comment). If the article is made more interesting and show notability I instead withdraw my vote. JAGulin 11:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. JJL 23:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Spam by a non-notable organization which profits from more spam. RFerreira 06:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, spam, and definitely non-notable. *Cremepuff222* 21:14, 12 June 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.