Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlueFocus Communication Group


 * 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SPEEDYKEEP #1. Nom has withdrawn the AfD. The sole deletion !vote has been retracted. Zindor (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

BlueFocus Communication Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

- Hatchens (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - This nomination is based on accusations that it is an attempt to advertise and promote. These statements have been removed as obviously-frivolous personal attacks against the article creator, who is an established editor in good standing. As a user has endorsed deletion for an unrelated reason, the discussion will be kept open. ~Swarm~  {sting} 05:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding proofs as per directives provided at WP:ANI discussion;

1. Its' media citations are completely sponsored ones and part of either press release sites (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) or something near about like that. In short, it doesn't have much citations from sites listed on WP:RS or WP:RSPMISSING.

2. Just 4 passing mentions in Books.

3. Just couple passing mentions in Academic articles.

4. Nothing on JSTOR.

5. Nothing on NYT.

In short, also fails WP:SIGCOV. -Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable --Devokewater @  09:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I wrote this article because it's one of the largest, fastest-growing ad agencies in the world, with multiple sources discussing its growth. It is a relatively large publicly-traded company, and as Wikipedia notability for companies (WP:CORP) explains, "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies", Of course I wasn't paid. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2007 across a wide range of topics and there's never been any evidence of paid promotion. I have never been paid or advertised such services, period. As I explained to, if such baseless accusations persist, I will report them to WP:ANI and pursue whatever remedies I can. Don't make Wikipedia a hostile work environment. CC , !votes should include reasoning. II  | (t - c) 11:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, I apologize for the inconvenience. But, I'm not able to understand when I got personal with you?? Anyway, please report at WP:ANI. I'll meet you there. -Hatchens (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Update on my statement to respond to the nom : "I will briefly mention that of the currently cited sources, you only grabbed 1 (PRWeek). BlueFocus is a multibillion US dollar company (~$2.b USD). PRWeek is not PR site, it's a trade magazine. AdAge also did an in-depth profile, as did The Globe and Mail." II  | (t - c) 16:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources found by nominator are not all promotional besides there are two additional articles in the financial times directly addressing the company, 1 2 Additional sources also exist, but the existing sources were not promo pieces, rather they are industry pieces that include PR in the name simply because the industry is PR PainProf (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I've looked at the article and the references in some detail since it is the focus of a brouhaha elsewhere that I am peripherally involved in, and I confess I am having difficulty with it. I'd expect more flesh and more in the way of referencing for an organisation where the references used suggest it to be fast growing. I acknowledge that it was created as a start and in a single edit. I hope further expansion is forthcoming and I shall see what I can find myself assuming it is kept and someone reminds me to look)The references aren't what they first appear to be, and I can see why the nom came to the conclusions they did about them. A first look suggests them to be PR, but the advertising and agency world is peculiar in that this is what it generates. I'm used to the titles the references come from. My employment was as a user of this type of organisation, and I see these sources as passing WP:RS. Context is important here. I also see significant coverage in them. That is is 'unusual' style coverage is unimportant. This is what this style of source would say about a PR organisation. Based upon pure policy it passes WP:CORP.  Fiddle   Faddle  18:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just added material from a reference in Campaign, an industry standard publication, seen as authoritative by those within and outside the marketing industry Fiddle   Faddle  19:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Noting that there appears to be a whole chapter about this company in published by Springer. That’s SIGCOV and a RS. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the FT (in 2014), "Blue Focus [is] China's biggest listed public relations company and one of the fastest-growing communications groups in the world...". Sounds like a company that we ought to have an article on. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn by nominator: After going through the reasons mentioned in this AfD discussion and also as per the points raised in WP:ANI, I would like to withdraw my AfD nomination and request concerned authority for quick closure. Also, I would like to apologize to the creator of this article for unknowingly indulging in "personal attack" which has created an inconvenient situation for everyone in our community. Thank you all for guiding me and make me more aware of the rules which we all need to adhere, with absolute integrity. - Hatchens (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2020 (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.