Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cogora


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cogora

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A largely promotional article without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guideline. Some of the "references" don't even mention Cogora, & those that do either only briefly mention it or are not independent sources, or both. The article was tagged for the need for sources to establish notability shortly after it was created in 2013, but the situation is no better now. Also, the creation and the substantial majority of the editing have been from single purpose editors with clear signs of conflict of interest, and despite efforts to reduce promotional content, it has persisted in being largely promotional in character.

A PROD was removed with an edit summary which said "significant coverage in cited sources. need to also search under former name 'Campden Health'". I have checked every one of the cited sources, and yes I did look for "Campden Health" as well as "Cogora". Those sources are as follows*
 * Six pages not mentioning either "Cogora", "Campden Health", or any other form of the name of the company. They may or may not be useful citations for related facts mentioned in the article, but they are certainly not evidence of notability of Cogora.
 * An article which is not about Cogora/Campden Health, but which makes a few quotes from various people, including a one-sentence mention of a view expressed by unnamed employees of Campden Health.
 * Three pages on Cogora's own web sites 2 (www.cogora.com, www.managementinpractice.com, and www.pulsetoday.co.uk - the last one being a dead link).
 * An advertising video for a Cogora publication, posted on YouTube.
 * A clearly promotional page on the website of www.createmarketing.co.uk, about a campaign in a magazine published by Cogora. The name "createmarketing" pretty well says it all, but to make sure I checked the site's own information about itself. Sure enough, it clearly states that its purpose is to provide its "clients" with "brand development, global asset creation, campaign development, content creation, web building and online communications".
 * Three pages on the website of the Professional Publishers' Association. That is clearly not an independent source, as it exists to promote the interests of its members, but in any case the only mentions of Cogora on two of the pages are inclusions of the company's name in lists of awards the association gives to its members, in one case with a photograph of Cogora employees, and the third page is just a medium for a person described as Cogora's "Manging (sic) Director" to publicise his views. Similarly, a page on the web site of the British Society of Magazine Editors, which merely includes the name of two Cogora employees in a list.
 * A dead link, which in any case appears to have merely been an announcement that the company was changing its name.
 * Two press releases on www.prnewswire.co.uk, merely announcing in one case the change of the company's name, and in the other a business deal, together with marketing copy such as the statemnt that the company "has produced inspirational and incisive multi-channel content".
 * A press release on www.prweek.com announcing a personnel appointment at Cogora.
 * An announcement on the web site of a company which owned Cogora that it was selling Cogora.
 * A brief report on the fact that Cogora was buying a magazine.
 * A personal video made by a nurse and uploaded to YouTube.

I don't see how that can reasonably be regarded that as substantial coverage, and certainly not as substantial coverage in independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  12:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  12:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as clearly none of this satisfies the applicable notability and my searches also found nothing better. Notifying for analysis as I believe he will be interested with this AfD.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I tend to want to keep articles on  publishers, even if it means stretching the guidelines a little. IWe do a service to our users by clarifying the nature of what they might want to use as a reference, And in this case at least one of its magazines is probably notable,  DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly a promotional article.Rogermx (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional, and without any evidence of notability. DGG may personally like to keep all articles about publishers, but that is just his opinion, totally inconsistent with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and so should be completely ignored by the admin closing this discussion, as consensus should be judged in terms of Wikipedia polices and guidelines. Even DGG admits that what he proposes is "stretching the guidelines a little", which means "acting contrary to the guidelines". The king of the sun (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2016 (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.