Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engine 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 Delete. The articles' creator may, if he wishes, create the pages in his own userspace and check them with any user willing to provide that help before moving them (or having them moved) into articlespace. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Engine group

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence of notability; creator removed prod without comment.

I am including the related article Peter Scott - Engine Group in this AfD. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add the also-related article Robin Wight to the AfD. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Also, vanity = gross. Scienter 17:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete all three, they look like spam, and are the only contribs from a single-purpose account, Special:Contributions/Markusse. Doesn't this fit the criteria for WP:CSD, blatant advertising? Quoting from the article, "A new model of agency for the 21st century."  ?!?!  --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Artaxiad 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone, thanks for looking after the integrity of wikipedia in such a efficient manner. Following, Fisherqueen's advice I would like to clarify the reasons why I have added these entries. Far from being a "blatant advertising" or a "gross exercise of vanity", these are just my first wikipedia entries. I am a marketing student living in the UK and I was very surprised when the second biggest independent UK agency was not included in the index. As I am a beginner I am not totally aware of all the requirements. I do admit I should have read better the rules of the game before posting. I did run a search for other important advertising agencies like BBDO or Ogivly before I decided to add this one. They all have similar descriptions. My main mistake was taking a lot of information from their website rather than coming up with something totally original. I thought other people would edit it to improve it, rather than send it straight for deletion. The only edit I have seen so far is the deletion of most of the Engine Group entry. While I work in an improved version, I have edited the other two today (Peter Scott and Robin Wight) to try and make them more suitable. I will continue working on them if given the chance. FisherQueen pointed out the notability requirement and the need to offer sources. I do have quite a few articles from advertising magazines like Campaing, Brand Republic, New Media Age and others where these people and their work are mentioned. However, they are hard copies and it is not possible to find them online. I am not too sure how you deal with these sort of things. Also, I am not too sure who are the admins that are going to make the decission. I would hope this is the case but, if it is not, before you decide total and definitive deletion, please check with someone who knows about advertising in the UK/Europe. thanks in advance! Markusse 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: I think you may still be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is all about (see Five pillars for that), and also misunderstanding what needs to be done to save these articles, so I will try to clarify the main problems. First of all, in Notability it states "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable." If the subjects of your articles were notable, there would be numerous newspaper and independent magazine stories (like BusinessWeek, not solely ad agency mags) about them, but apparently there are none and so this company and its executives are not notable either. Secondly, you say "My main mistake was taking a lot of information from their website rather than coming up with something totally original", but Wikipedia is not the place for original research either.  Please review the official policies (WP:A or WP:V), which state '"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources."  The articles completely fail to follow this policy.  They are simply not notable enough for inclusion in WP, unless you are able to find reliable, independent secondary sources which discuss them and cite their notability.  If you wish to temporarily save the content of these articles you have worked on, you need to go through the history of each one and save the most complete version to pages in your userspace (e.g. User:Markusse, along with subpages of it such as User:Markusse/Test), but do note that anyone can see and edit all pages in your userspace, and inappropriate content, blatant advertising, etc. will still be deleted from there.  As it stands, all three articles appear certain to fail this AfD, and they will be deleted within days unless reliable, independent secondary sources are found.  Quoting from Attribution, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."  It is up to you to find such sources in order to forestall deletion.  Information on properly citing printed and online materials can be found at WP:CITE.  Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is possible that in the future, this company and its execs may become notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, e.g. if they are featured in major newspapers or magazines like Fortune. In that case, you may re-create the articles anew, or ask an administrator to undelete them, see Undeletion policy.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I was going to give up yesterday after reading the comments. However, I have changed my mind. I still want to contribute and I am convinced we are missing out by not having entries for these three subjects. Consequently, I have been digging out some info from the newspaper library at uni. I have found mentions to the Engine Group, Peter Scott and Robin Wight in mainstream media such as: Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, The Times and others. Some of them talk about client gains, other talk about neuro science and its connections with advertising (Robin Wight body of work is quoted several time) other talk about advertising industry in the UK. I have scanned some of them and you can see them below. I hope this helps to prove my point about notability. Also, bear in mind that the guidelines don't say anything about the type or scope of the magazines that you can use. Both "mainstream newspapers and magazines" are accepted. Now, the guidelines say the author of the entry needs to attribute quotes or references and material that "is likely to be challenged". There are not quotes or references in the entry. My questions is: why are you challenging the entry in the first place? If it is because of the way it has been written, I agree it needs to be revised. I am working on it. If it is because you don't know who these people and therefore their "notability" is dubious for you... Then, may I ask you how well you know the European advertising industry? I think it is a bit risky to challenge something unless you have a good knowledge of that field. Please see below some of the scraps that I have scanned. There are more.... Markusse 16:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)  Image:Sky_The_Sunday_Times_3_Dec_06.jpg, Image:Daily_telegraph_scrap.JPG, Image:Peter Scott Campaign 180107.JPG, Image:SkyFT01Dec06.jpg
 * Reply: Markusse, please do not add photos in these discussions again. The proper way to refer to images is to put a ":" in the tag, like this Image:Sky_The_Sunday_Times_3_Dec_06.jpg, so that they display as inline links (I have now fixed them).  Also, please do not use  tags here, it breaks the formatting; use * instead.  When in doubt, please look around to see what others have done in this and other AfD discussions and either follow or copy their examples.  Also, all of your scanned images constitute possible (certain?) copyright violations and will be deleted.  See Uploading images and WP:COPYVIO for more info.  The proper way to provide references is NOT by scanning and posting chunks of copyrighted material.  As I mentioned above, information on properly citing printed and online materials can be found at WP:CITE.  PLEASE make more of an effort to read and abide by our policies if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia.  The serious peril of deletion now facing your 3 articles could have been avoided by doing so, and deletion may yet be averted if you manage to bring the articles up to an acceptable standard meeting WP:A and WP:V.  We have no desire to delete legitimate contributions which meet notability standards, but the burden of evidence (and proper citation thereof) lies with you.  We don't have to know anything about "the European advertising industry" in order to comment upon (and delete, if necessary) articles which fail to meet Wikipedia policies.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thanks again for the good tips on how to use the system properly. As with any other new application there is a learning curve and other's people help is essential. Cheers for taking the time to do it with me. I am working on improved articles at the moment and will submit shortly. The only reasons why I uploaded the image files was because I just wanted to prove my point. I have now also learned that. There is no need to go on about WP:A and WP:V any more. I have now read, diggested and understood the policies and I am working in articles that meet those guidelines. There is only one more thing though. I am still under the impressiont that the only way you can dare to question the notability of an entry is because you know very well that field. Hence you know what is notable or not. For instance, I don't know anything about physics. Following your logic, I could see a new entry about some scientist somewhere. I could then run a google search and don't find relevant information (maybe because the guy shares his name with a celebrity or has only been published in specialised magazines that are not available online). He is still famous and his work may be revolutionary, certainly deserving a wikipedia entry. However, I have never heard about him. Would I be in the position of challenging that article? Certainly not. My knowledge of the field is null. Therefore I can't challenge notability. I can certainly challenge the infringement of other policies (as I said: fair enough, point taken, working to improve) but I could never challenge notability. Of course, if you think otherwise or this works in a differnt way, could you please explain it to me so I can understand it better? Thanks again!Markusse 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Markusse, thanks for taking the time to read and understand WP policies. Regarding your statement, "the only way you can dare to question the notability of an entry is because you know very well that field", that's not true in this context.  The issue here on WP is that (obviously) not everyone can be an expert on every subject.  So it is up to the article's creator to provide references that establish and confirm any article subject's notability, be it a scientist or band or school or whatever.  Any article which fails to do so is likely to end up with either a speedy deletion notice on it, or prod, or be listed here at AfD (these are the 3 primary avenues for deletion).  Many editors (though not me) patrol the list of new articles created, looking for just such articles which fail to meet policy and establish notability.  So your hypothetical physicist's article, if it had no references, would probably end up with a deletion notice (or maybe even a hoax notice if someone thought it looked fishy).  Then the article's creator (or anyone else, too) would need to provide references and make sure to assert the subject's notability in the text, preferably in the first paragraph.  If the subject were truly notable, someone would easily find plenty of published references (some of us are physicists and have extensive online/print access to scientific journals, which would certainly have many papers written by any notable physicist).  Even if the article got deleted initially, it's no big deal since it could be undeleted upon proper request or simply recreated in proper form.  Subject's which are notable enough will eventually get a proper WP article, someone will write it.  That's one of the basic principles of this entire project.  The proper way to write a new article (and avoid deletion notices) is to make a small stub with basic info, save it, then add some solid references (which you've already collected beforehand), save again, and then expand the text with further relevant info and details.  There you have it, a soild article started in less than an hour. I've created about 50 Wikipedia articles, always followed this plan, and never received a deletion notice.  The solid references are the absolute key, I've never started a WP article without refs, and I go around adding refs to 100s of other articles which need them.  See WP:MOS and WP:BETTER for many tips and guidelines on writing a good article.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Good stuff. Your metodology makes sense. What I tried to publish was probably the first stage in that process. I'll try to have something ready tomorrow and I'll post it for your feedback. Thanks again. Markusse 10:16, 29 March 2007 (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.