Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRAD Insight


 * 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   no consensus. There is no consensus to delete in this AfD. Whether this should be kept or merged, or Brad (British Rates and Data) merged into the current article can be decided on the talk page. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

BRAD Insight

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable company. References consist of either 1) sponsorships (i.e., ads) placed in the Guardian, 2) self-published media kits / press releases, or 3) passing mention in press releases for a ALF. Creator has a COI, using EMAP in username.  1 GNews hit (mention in passing), a few GHits.    GregJackP   Boomer!   12:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons outlined above. Note: editor has blanked the content and moved the page to Crookstill, for unclear reasons (we're clearly dealing with a new editor). I don't know if db-author is appropriate in this case; any passing admin, please have a look and check out the history too--maybe the move needs to be undone (I undid the blanking). Drmies (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to make matters more easier, they moved it to Brad media first, it seems. I'm getting dazed and confused. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone with buttons, please look into Crookstowe, Crookfur, Brad (British Rates and Data), and any others I might have missed as well. Drmies (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The author of BRAD Insight moved it to Brad media and then from there to Crookstill, despite the fact that the article does not even mention "Crookstill". The same author has also moved the longstanding article Brad (British Rates and Data) to Crookfur and from there to Crookstowe. I have moved them back to reduce confusion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is an example of how Brad (British Rates and Data) is used as a reference in an article about a newspaper publisher. Brad is a widely used source of information about advertising rates for British media. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the article you linked to does more than give an example; it actually qualifies BRAD, so that's good--for me, it's still a bit thin, and I couldn't find any actual discussion beyond mentions. Can you find more? BTW, I got a date with Betty tomorrow... Drmies (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Creator tagged the page with csd-g7 (in good faith - new editor). I removed the tag due to the afd discussion.  I do not have a problem with deletion (obviously), but with the afd in process, if speedied, it should be done from here.   GregJackP   Boomer!   14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge There is already an article on this topic at Brad (British Rates and Data), and we certainly don't need both. Either they should both be deleted, or else any content in BRAD Insight considered worth keeping should be merged into Brad (British Rates and Data) and BRAD Insight deleted. Of the two I marginally prefer the merge, as the subject does appear to have some notability (even though the article does not do a very good job of showing it). JamesBWatson (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of merging the two articles. I work in advertising and BRAD is like a bible. It is genuinely extremely notable, although I acknowledge probably only to a relatively small group. The older article, British Rates and Data, seems a little more out of date. I suggest we merge the two and given that the business is now actually known as BRAD Insight, keep the latter article? I am amazed at the controversy! Th.cam.wiki (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't mind looking for more substantial references to back up the article or making other improvements if it's decided not to delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.cam.wiki (talk • contribs) 14:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a merge, provided V/RS are provided. GregJackP   Boomer!   14:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the process to be followed? Who decided whether a merge goes ahead and how do they do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.cam.wiki (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nominating main article. Bongo  matic  23:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep...something?: First, let me say that I'm unbelievably confused about all the different pages. And I know that a lot of the pages aren't terribly well sourced.  But, unfortunately, common sense tells me that if they've produce 276 editions, with over 3.8 million copies, of a directory that is used by 96% of the businesses in the field in the U.K., that this company has to qualify as notable.  Looking at the sources, it looks to me like both campaign and BRANDREPUBLIC are reliable sources (although it's actually only one source, because it's the same article).  They read like PR pieces, but the journals they are in are about media and PR, so that makes sense (to me, anyway).  It really pains me to support keeping one of these articles, because I'm pretty much an immediatist/deletionist. Common sense, though, tells me that there must be some way to source this...I have no idea, though, which of the articles should survive.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article seems to be of some importance - common sense also tells me that 3.8 millions copies means notability! I agree the references aren't the strongest but I think they do illustrate the notability of BRAD Insight. For example, if the re-launch of your product is featured in all the relevant industry publications then doesn't this mean something (even if it was a press release)? The references back all the factual elements of the article. I think it's really important that Wikipedia isn't cluttered with advertising junk but it is equally important that notable businesses are featured. I argue keep, and delete the old article. Mia.JRR (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Also, the references to the Guardian Media page have been criticised but I don't see why - a) they factually back up the assertion that the business has partnered with these events b) the fact that Guardian Media group (nobody is going to argue its notability!) partnered with them show's that they are a notable player in the industry, right? One last thing: if the old article was 'longstanding' as said above, then doesn't that mean that notability has already been established and it's just a matter of checking the content of the new article and deleting the less interesting one?Mia.JRR (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC) — Mia.JRR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete or merge We don't need two articles on the one business. Peridon (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep something I agree - we do not need two articles on the one business. However, I think that one should remain. Notabitility criteria seems, to me, to be met - 3.8 million copies have been produced and BRAD appears to be very well known by those in the industries. When searching for the company in Google I also found that universities seem to use the resource. Perhaps a more careful search would yield a reference illustrating how the resources are used by them? The creator perhaps ought to look at this possibility. Claude.drm (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as apparently a major information service. I am unable to divine the motives of the originator: did they set out to write a straightforward article, and then start acting oddly when notability  was questioned (a not uncommon occurrence) ?  Was the intention of the names to insult the company, or us, or ??? If kept, this article will need watching.    DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was a classic "I give up" reaction after trying to move it to save it. Brand new editor.  GregJackP   Boomer!   04:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's certainly a notable product/service and it's much better than the Brad (British Rates and Data) article. Barnabypage (talk) 14:56, 11 August 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.