Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMD (advertising) (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. Hut 8.5 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OMD (advertising)

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

Delete Advertising, plain and simple. Previously nominated for deletion in April 2007, when it survived with a comment by the closing admin that those who had advocated keeping would actualy make the necessary improvements to the article. In fact, since that AfD, the only significant change has been to expand the article to 3 times its original size with blatant advertising copy from the company. It is clear that there is no prospect of this article being improved to a satisfactory standard. Mayalld (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This article might be merged with Omnicom but would be retained as a redirect in that case. Otherwise the article is obviously capable of improvement as a few moments research would indicate. Mayalld needs to do more research before raising such futile nominations. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Whether improvement is possible is pretty irrelevant, given that having survived a previous AfD, improvement failed to happen. Nobody is interested in improving the article, so it won't improve. Let us not live in cloud-cuckoo-land where we fondly imagine that every bad article might just improved if we just give it 15 more years Mayalld (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:NOEFFORT and WP:DEADLINE. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

*Merge/redirect to Omnicom Group. This company is notable enough and the page can be split out again if someone is prepared to expand it.

• Keep - Plenty of sources here. Consideration should be given to taking merge action without an AfD in future, similar cases. Unless the page meets speedy criteria, deletion should only be considered where the subject is not notable, not because of a poor quality article. TerriersFan (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The company is the second largest media specialist agency worldwide, it's nearly $25 billion USD in billings worldwide not enough to keep the top spot it held in the 2006 rankings. Reliable and verifiable sources satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Note: The fact that an advertising firm is described does not trigger the "advert" tag, as the article provided factual details of the firms business in neutral terms. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand before the deadline. The article is not advertising by any standard, or if you do actually detect any in the current version, just fix it yourself. This company is huge and notable. I don't really see the point of a merge to Omnicom Group. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article is poor but asserts that the company is succesful and noteworthy. I do not think the article qualifies as advertising. It just needs some attention from someone knowledgeable about the company. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:22, 12 January 2008 (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.