Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OutCast Communications

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 Merge and Redirect to Next Fifteen Communications. Avi 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OutCast Communications

Non-notable PR firm. I put a PROD tag on it since there were claims of notability, but the tag was removed by the article's creator, who is creating several related non-notable company articles. Corvus cornix 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not even close to meeting WP:CORP. Mystache 19:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully argue that Corvus cornix is mistaken. I am the article's creater, and I have not removed any tag from the article. Furthermore, Corvus cornix later acknowledged on my talk page that his original PROD tag was mistaken.

I believe he has me confused with a newly registered user who created a number of arguably non-notable entries for similar companies yesterday.

At any rate, based on the following published guidelines for notability, I believe that this article should remain published and is both non-promotional and neutral:

Criteria for companies and corporations

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

  1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.
         * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations2 except for the following:
               o Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.1
               o Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.
  2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3
  3. The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

The company has been the subject of numerous articles (*not* press releases) in its industries' journals of record, satisfying #1, and is ranked annually in ranking indices in those same journals of record, satisfying #2. The sources currently cited in the article satisfy these requirements, but I will add more. Davedonohue 19:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Davedonohue

Mr. Donohue is correct in that I keep mixing him up with User:Timdyson, but both are creating articles on the same company and editing each other's articles. I did not say on Davedonohue's Talk page that my prod wasn't valid, but I did change the reason for the prod because of my mixup of the two editors. The reasoning for my prod nomination still stands, as does my reasoning for this nomination for deletion. Corvus cornix 19:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As the person who seems to have created this problem I'd first like to apologize if I have broken any rules. I would hope that anyone who researches my company will soon learn that the businesses are all notable in their field. Deleting them from wikipedia would be somewhat unfair given there are other similar firms listed and their entries are no more supported. --Timdyson 19:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Corvus cornix did change the prod reason - apologies for not noticing that on my own page. I maintain that this article pertains to a company that meets both criteria #1 and #2 above, thus satisfactorily establishing its notability, and suggest that if the deletion discussion continue, those who disagree should cite why they believe it does NOT meet those criteria.

• Merge As far as I can tell, this firm is a wholly owned subsidiary of Next Fifteen Communications, as per their own source [1]. The most reliable sources I found about OutCast involved the sale to Next Fifteen, and if its true that its a wholly owned subsidiary, then there is no way it can meet criteria #2. This article doesn't have enough to stand on its own, and its contents will bolster the Next Fifteen Communications page (which I think is notable enough), so I think its a win win. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per CosmicPenguin. There appear to be conflict of interest issues here too.--Kubigula (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: OutCast+Communications — news, books, scholar Addhoc 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge for now, however in future, per above searches, a separate article may be viable. Addhoc 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per CosmicPenguin. Tagging as such. Butseriouslyfolks 18:12, 8 February 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.