Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casale Media (2nd nomination)


 * 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. While merely pointing to search results is insufficient to establish notability under the general notability guideline, the arguments for notability independent of sourcing have precedent and have not been convincingly addressed. In short, there is no consensus for any course of action in this discussion. Skomorokh, barbarian  01:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Casale Media
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a non-notable company. The sources in the article and the sources in Google News Archive are either press releases or passing mentions. Cunard (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been several edits by employees of Casale Media; of whichh seem to try to justify the actions of the company. There have also been edits by said employees which remove negative aspects of this article to reflect the company's actual acts. This is a long standing argument. It should be deleted as Wikipedia is not a place to advertise, promote or jusrtify one's actions; especiallyy if those actions can be considered mallicious .ZellDenver (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * restore the page appears to have been whitewashed, it is notable, and needs to be restored to a previous version, including the criticism UltraMagnusspeak 12:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide the reliable sources that prove that this company passes WP:CORP. Having looked through the article's history, I am unable to see how the criticism information establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not commenting on the subjects notability, I am simply stating that editors should refrain from passing judgement until the article has been un-whitewashed. --UltraMagnusspeak 21:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this version? I'm not seeing the notability there. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I may not know all the nuances of notability, but clicking on the "News" or even "Scholar" or "Books" seems to come up with perfectly usable results. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide links to the sources that you believe establish notability. The sources in those searches are either passing mentions, reprints of press releases, or unreliable. Cunard (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Neutral See, perhaps Articles for deletion/Ad-Up (2nd nomination), related to the spurious first AfD of this article in 2006. I will agree that the current sources are not sufficient to indicate notability, but the comscore.com article contains information suggesting that decent enough sources could be found to pass WP:GNG, if not WP:CORP. Someone might want to tap since he was involved in the old AfD. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That link from comscore is a good indication of notability, but the depth of coverage is not enough to establish notability. The searches I performed returned mainly press releases. I have contacted to see if he can find sources. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Casale is a fairly large agency with very broad reach - they just aren't well known by the average consumer since they only brand themselves to corporations. -Drdisque (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete A7 - this article about an organisation does not assert notability. Nothing here lifts it above WP:MILL.  (I realise the speedy delete isn't going to get up given the volume of discussion and the history, but the point is that it's incumbent upon articles about organisations to not just have the potential to assert notability, but to actually do it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DustFormsWords (talk • contribs) 05:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * the phrase "Media Metrix reports that Casale Media's ads reach 109,865,000 web users." appears to assert notability --<SPAN STYLE="background-color: black; color: Red">Ultra<SPAN STYLE="color: #0079e0">Magnus</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="color:red;background-color:black;">speak</SPAN> 20:47, 30 October 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.