Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebiquity


 * 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   keep. As sources were located and the article improved, the consensus has changed to "keep". Parts of the article still seem a bit spammy, but that can be addressed through editing rather than deletion. Mkativerata (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ebiquity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely promotional article about a company that does not establish or even suggest any form notability. WP:PROMO, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Article was speedied, userfied, and although the editor was advised that it was not ready for primetime at a request for WP:REFUND, they moved it back into articlespace. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. No genuine notability and no assertion of any notability. For most Wikipedia readers this is very much a back-office outfit and will be known only within its own business circles and not the bigger world. Self promotional. The relentless business speak doesn't help either.  Velella  Velella Talk 10:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, The article is about a well known international company who have offices around the world and are listed on the London stock exchange. Regarding notability, they often generate news interest beyond passing mention or reference as a source. In fact they have been the main focus of news stories from well know international news and media channels such as The Financial Times and Campaign. As the news channels that offer the more detailed analysis have put content behind pay walls it has reduced the amount of references available that everyone can see. People from around the world who read publications like The Financial Times, The Independent and Telegraph who have combined circulation of over a million would have at some point have heard of Ebiquity. The original user who moved the article to their user space agreed Ebiquity is a valid subject to have an individual page but wrote that it needed to be edited, before moving it back over I rewrote the article and removed the content I could not find independent references for. The user has kindly offered to edit the article to make it move wikipedia friendly and useful for people wishing to research a well known company they may want to find out about. Can you hold off deleting it so we can turn it into something useful? Wwjx0p (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please cite the articles in the Financial Times, The Independent, and The Telegraph that you are talking about. Their own archive searches show no such articles existing.  Uncle G (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't hold your breath. You'll note he/she said that readers of Financial Times etc. "would have at some point have heard" of this titan of industry.  I doubt we'll ever be told where or when.  EEng (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete In answer to above, No, we can't hold off. You add notability references first, then we won't delete.  Not that other way around. You have about a week.  EEng (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Debatable notability, blatant advertising. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – sorry, this is mainly my fault, I'm trying to help out but my wiki-time recently has just evaporated. As Ebiquity, coverage includes:
 * research-live.com
 * Investors' Chronicle
 * This is London
 * The company was founded as Thomson Intermedia, and coverage under this name includes articles in:


 * The Times
 * The Guardian
 * The Independent
 * and an article in Printing World (ooh) that needs some registering
 * Furthermore the company bought Billetts, which probably has further sourcing, but I stumbled across this, this and this. I would firstly apologise to Wwjx0p for not giving the time I initially offered, and then to the other editors involved in this discussion, as I should never have let it get to this point. Bigger digger (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have taken the libery of tagging this for ARS rescue as I don't think I'm going to get to it. Bigger digger (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, Keep and rescue if someone wants to remove all the advertising, or change to stub if not. Probably enough coverage for an article, but not this one. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Because of Google news archive search showing the company gets ample coverage.  D r e a m Focus  03:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 20:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appears to have enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I've taken the liberty of deleting some of the more spammy parts of the article.  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 20:04, 13 December 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.