Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adify


 * 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 redirect to Cox Media Group. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Adify

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Rely only on non-credible media sources. Merely Press Release on media. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 15:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Blatantly promotional per nom. Delete and redirect to Cox Media - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: There is substantial coverage of this company in highly reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and others. Article should likely be moved/renamed to Cox Digital Solutions, as sources say the Adify name hasn't been used since 2011 after a buy-out/merger. If nominator believes an article is blatantly promotional, they should prod it under WP:G11. But if an article is AFD'd and meets WP:GNG, like this one, the fact that it may be promotional in tone isn't a reason to delete it. In any event, this article isn't blatantly promotional. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be reluctant to call those two "substantial" - a severe lack of WP:CORPDEPTH. A kept article on that basis will be about a paragraph. Also, it's depressingly easy for an article to be blatantly promotional and not quite qualify for speedy - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Not a tremendous amount of depth of coverage, but enough non-PR articles to squeak by. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * News covered by popular media NyTimes and Washington post is for Press only. They both are writing only one thing The Merging of two companies. Company merge evrery day, and definitely it is written on newspaper daily. Nothing makes them significant for this part. Merely coverd by popular media is not important. What is covered is more important. I have read those articles. Nothing is there except press. Light2021 (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect as it's clearly by far best known for that, and nothing else is suggesting otherwise, what's listed is simply repeating that and then what the company information was about and there's simply nothing else actually suggestive of a convincing independent article. SwisterTwister   talk  22:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. and move to  Cox Digitalon the basis of the NTarticle. This is significant coverage. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Besides WaPo and NYT, there's Business Week, Mercury News. I think it might be less confusing to readers, and less wordy to write, to keep Adify where it is and instead redirect Cox Digital Solutions to Cox Media Group. You can first read that Adify did X, Y, and Z, then click through to the Cox article to read what took place after it became a subsidiary under a new name. Keeping and moving as DDG suggests is acceptable too, but requires more disambiguation in the text to keep track of what was done under one name/ownership and under the other. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cox Media Group. This topic is not historically significant. It is another startup or youngish company that was bought by a larger company. This is business as usual. Also, just because there is coverage in publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post does not mean this topic is notable. Both of these published articles are small business announcements and do not qualify as WP:CORPDEPTH sources. The coverage is routine business announcements with a quote from a company source - a senior vice president . The other sources mentioned do the same. Coverage in these so-called "news" articles rely only on company executives for information. This is not independent coverage as required when using reliable sources to determine notability. Steve Quinn (talk)
 * Merge/Redirect to Cox Media Group so that the business can be discussed in the particularly helpful, broader context. This addresses as well the sourcing concerns since it's not that notable on its own. Issues with promotional-type wording and the like can be solved in the merging process. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Cox Media Group. Sources are acceptable for coverage within that article, concerns of PR and promotion seem a bit strong.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2016 (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.