Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cityvibe (advertising agency)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cityvibe (advertising agency)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Contested prod. For me, this is non-notable, and fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB The contestor has turned up some news reports but they're pretty trivial and tangental. If the article is kept it should be renamed - it is an escourt, not an advertising agency Declan Clam (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is referenced in the media on a regular basis. I have a new piece of source material to add today. // Declan Clam, you may be right, that this isn't a general-purpose advertising agency. I will find a more appropriate category.MaryMac1828 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)MaryMac1828
 * Weak Delete Only passing mentions in sources listed. However, if kept, agree with Declan Clam that a rename is necessary. Glass  Cobra  16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is apparently a website that allows prostitutes and other sex workers to advertise on the Internet.  Apart from the squick factor and any legalities involved, the articles on Slate and the Heidi Fleiss article are all surveys of sex workers on the Internet that mention this site in passing as one of several websites that offer such services.  They aren't about this business itself, and mention it in passing.  That isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to make this notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given Smerdis' commentary, I'd say speedy delete as spam. They don't have notability, they are in the business of marketing something, and they seem to be using a lot of buzzwords in their article.  So tagged. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:15, 15 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.