Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azam Marketing


 * 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. Courcelles 00:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Azam Marketing

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Company does not appear to be notable. Looks like it was posted by an employee or PR person working for the company -- editor is a new account, and his only other edit was on a related article about a web site this company runs (since speedy-deleted). Only one reference that might be considered reliable, and that's just not enough. I suspect self-promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: An article about the founder is also up for AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:COMPANY; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Nanodance (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete As per above no notiable sources are in or found for article  Staffwaterboy Critique Me  22:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried that; it was contested. (I forgot to mention that in the nomination, sorry.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is actually significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Over 30,000 listings for this agency in Google alone. The agency is 13 years old, and works with brand name clients. See: http://www.azam.net/clients-best-service/ Based on the feedback, I have now added lots of references added because comment said "This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications". Is that OK? Or does anything else need to be added/ammended? Similar, but significantly smaller and newer agencies have a listing on Wikipedia e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7thingsmedia Markbristol (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC) — Markbristol (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Not much help. Two references are blogs, which are not considered to be reliable sources. Another is a buyer's guide, which is a mere listing of companies; this only verifies the firm exists, not that it is notable. Two others are interviews with the founder, and really don't discuss the company very much — they're more useful in the article about Azam himself, though even that is doubtful. So overall, these references to little to boost your case. By the way, do you work for this company in some capacity? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Other stuff exists. But 7thingsmedia similarly fails notability per WP:COMPANY, so I've WP:PRODded that too. Nanodance (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your feedback. "Another is a buyer's guide, which is a mere listing of companies; this only verifies the firm exists, not that it is notable." - this is factually incorrect. Econsultancy are a reputable third party, who are very selective in terms of which companies they list in their guide, and, of the dozens and dozens of companies that offer affiliate marketing, only list the "leading" 18. It says at http://econsultancy.com/uk/reports/affiliate-marketing-buyers-guide that the guide features "profiles of the leading UK affiliate marketing networks and agencies". Therefore this in an independent verification that this company is notable from reliable sources, as per the criteria of Wikipedia, and the listing should remain. If search online, you will see there are also countless other reliable sources from the last 13 years that profile Azam Marketing as a notable company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbristol (talk • contribs) 14:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Please note that when one refers to notability in this context, the notability is Wikipedia based notability.  There is a difference between that and "real-world" notability.  In addition, all references must meet the criteria in reliable sources.  The author of the article has the burden of providing support for the article, if you feel there are countless reliable sources in Google then I suggest you add a number of them to the article and this AfD will become a moot exorcise.  ttonyb  (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. An utterly routine online publicity business: the business focuses on affiliate management, eCRM and email marketing, search marketing, and website design and development....  Being in this business, it is obvious why they want a Wikipedia article for themselves.  Claims of significance, that they competed for trivial trade awards (Highly Commended Affiliate Management Agency of the Year at UK industry's a4uAwards.... selected as a finalist for five awards at a4uAward.... wins Highly Commended Best Lead Generation Campaign at a4uAwards....) do not get to the point of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:22, 6 September 2010 (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.