Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in the Womb


 * 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 to Ogilvy & Mather. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Animals in the Womb

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm fairly unclear on just why this article exists because there's nothing here which states why it is notable beyond who was responsible and who it is for. Seems like a fairly normal ad campaign (balancing on the back of a notable documentary) so basically it's failed WP:N, lacks sourcing (WP:RS) and seems to have been created out of WP:ILIKEIT. treelo radda  15:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unsourced areticle about a non-notable ad campaign. (Is it just me, or NickelodeonFan = SpongeBobFan = GreenBayPackersfan09 = Zach Benjamin = all the rest?) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If there is an issue of a sockpuppet drawer then I'd point you towards this SPI case and add a few bits about it here, AfD isn't really for checking up on sockdraws. treelo  radda  15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the National Geographic series In the Womb as this is a likely search term.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge with Ogilvy & Mather - The campaign has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and has been nominated for a Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival award in the "film" category. A few sources: (German),  (Swedish),  and  (Swedish, sources for the award statement),  (Swedish),, , ,  (Swedish),  (Swedish),  (RS?),  (RS?),  (RS?),  (RS?),  (German, RS?),  (Swedish, brief mention). It was also nominated for "best advertisement film" in a well-known Swedish award, Guldägget: , ,  . The name of the article is wrong, though, because "Animals in the Womb" isn't the official name of the campaign. Next Generation (Ford) or something like that would be more appropriate.  The  left orium  19:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of those sources are industry press articles which don't amount to much more than veiled press releases or announcements. Quite a few are very brief mentions, some are in relation to a nomination for non-notable awards and the several DagensMedia references really do only mention it in passing whilst others are regarding the product, not the advert itself. A nomination for the Cannes Lions is somewhat notable but seeing as it wasn't a win it doesn't seem encouraging. If you're going to source, please at least run them through a translator or otherwise read them because most every one of those "sources" are not good enough, by the same metric every high profile advertising campaign can be considered notable. treelo  radda  19:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I changed my mind while looking at the Ogilvy & Mather article. Merging it there is probably better, as the article won't become any longer than a stub with the little information available from the reliable sources I provided above.  The left orium  20:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into the parent article Ogilvy & Mather. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I can't determine the level of coverage in the non-English language sources above, the nominations it has received establish notability. If "keep" is not an option, then merge to advertising company, per above.--Pink Bull (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (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.