Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INVNT


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to INVNT Group. Deletion of INVNT Group was not considered, as it was added only after several participants already expressed their view, and despite the nom's best efforts, did not come back to opine about the second article. Almost all the Keep views were not based on policy or guidelines. A redirect to INVNT Group will likely only kick the can down the road to that page's AfD, but there's enough support here to pick this as a viable ATD. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

INVNT

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable (fails WP:GNG) and promotional. There are sources, but they are not reliable. Moreover, stricter scrutininy should be given to them per WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Local Variable (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Ahh, a brand experience company (that the article doesn't explain...) and promotional firm. The article uses only PR items (which does not come as a surprise) and I only see events they've organized, so either primary or simple name drops. Nothing extensive or in RS. PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Plenty of coverage in Global News Wire, which republishes press release items. We need some kind of sourcing that's not related (to this brand experience firm) so we can possibly keep here... Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree b Check readersdigest and eventindustrynews.com . I have just added them. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * First one, maybe, but it's only signed by the publishers, so is likely a RP item; second one is a trade journal, we don't consider it a RS Oaktree b (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * On Reader's Digest Sponsored content is clearly marked as "Promoted Content." Check this page for examples: https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/down-to-business Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Still a delete in my eyes. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies,  and New York.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though it is not MSM coverage, the subject is covered in various trade publications. desmay (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that there's a usual presumption against using trade publications to establish notability: TRADES. Local Variable (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * TRADES says Trade publications should be approached carefully, though it's not stated that they are outright unusable. If there's any proof suggesting these publications might have a conflict of interest or a direct relationship, such information should be provided. In the absence of such evidence, it's appropriate to proceed under the assumption of good faith. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All three of those source are press releases (see this wire), routine coverage WP:ORGTRIV and/or sponsored content. S0091 (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. These here are new citations not in the article when the page was nominated and got the above Delete vote, so all should be reconsidered:
 * readersdigest.co.uk - Reader's Digest is well known and reputable publication since 1922
 * - Very indepth article
 * 
 * sunshinecoastnews.com.au - behind paywall, but it appears to be a good article about the company
 * In addition, there a bunch more good articles such as:
 * ceoworld.biz  - CEO Spotlight, but majority of info is about the company
 * exeleonmagazine.com - Also about the CEO, but a good portion is about the company.
 * thedrum.com

Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't want to seen as badgering voters, but you did directly ask for us to reconsider, so I will. My view is unchanged. The sources are not reliable. They don't meet the higher degree of scrutiny for independence in relation to articles about companies (to stop marketing/trade publication websites enabling the proliferation of promotional articles). It should be noted the UK Reader's Digest is different from the American one. As the page you link suggests, it's operated under licence. That's probably the only somewhat reliable source; the article needs many more. While further contributions are welcome (including making the article not sound promotional), keep in mind that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Local Variable (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * KEEP : The company is mentioned on Woodstock's own Wikipedia page as a partner.
 * "The scheduled date for the "Bethel Woods Music and Culture Festival: Celebrating the golden anniversary at the historic site of the 1969 Woodstock festival" was August 16–18, 2019. Partners in the event were Live Nation and INVNT."
 * CAMPAIGN is a world renown source speaking directly on the company. This is a global company, which would naturally have global media sources.
 * Another source (clients are world renown - Amazon, Zillow, Microsoft) directly about the company - Event Industry News.
 * Another source directly about the company: Campaign BRIEF
 * Another source directly about the company: Exhibit News
 * Company does General Motors CES Keynote: Biz Bash 184.74.225.194 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — 184.74.225.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The Wikipedia page for INVNT outlines the company's role as a global live brand storytelling agency, detailing its history, key projects, and approach to branding and events. --Loewstisch (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per Oaktree and Local Variable. The vast majority of sources are press releases, partner/sponsored content or based mostly on the what the company says about itself which are primary and not independent.  Others are routine coverage and non-RS that exists for promotional purposes.  Almost all sources are trade publications which are not helpful for establishing notability (WP:TRADES). S0091 (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They have also several non-trade publications such as 1, 2. These are business publications. Trade publications would be those related to Marketing, Advertising and Public Relations industries. Reader's Digest is also not a Trade publication. Icesnowgeorge (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: I only just noticed there is another page, INVNT Group. The same rationale applies. I am adding it here. Sorry for the inadequate BEFORE.  (courtesy ping:  ) Local Variable (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding @Desmay, @Loewstisch, @Z3r0h3r000. @Local Variable see WP:BUNDLE for how to include more than one article in a single AfD. S0091 (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Local Variable (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Local Variable INVNT is a Subsidiary of INVNT GROUP. INVNT GROUP has many other subsidiaries. I have compared their citations and they have only a few citations in common and content of these articles are different. Possibly we can make the argument to MERGE the pages, but to me it appears that both entities have enough coverage to deserve their own pages. In addition, I do not believe your addition of INVNT GROUP into the same AFD after a few days is proper, as some prior votes have already been placed, so the deletion of that page should not be based on whatever the outcome of the results is here. Maxcreator (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * KEEP : INVNT has enough coverage to be considered notable. Reader's Digest Article seems to be the best one, but there are others. INVNT Group is the parent company should not be included in this AFD, due to its late addition. Maxcreator (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * According to INVT, the "post" on Reader Digest came from INVT, "The post INVNT – Transforming Brand Potentials appeared first on INVNT GROUP NEWS." so this is native advertising and why there is no named author, simply "Reader's Digest". This is a prime example of pretty much all the sources. S0091 (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not so evident to me if what you say is the case. The original post is gone. The content of the post on their website may have been different so without seeing it, we cannot say that it was copied. It would not make sense that an article in their own website would speak in 3rd person rather than 1st person. For example why would a post on their own site say "This forward-looking agency has achieved a lot..." if they were talking about themselves?
 * However, I stick with my KEEP vote based on several other articles available on the company. Maxcreator (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why ... if they were talking about themselves? Because that is what PR people do. They try to hide the fact that they are talking about themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep !voters are failing to critically analyse the sources. The tone of the Reader's Digest article alone sets off alarm bells. The Reader's Digest article is clearly advertising disguised as an article. Other sourcing to trade publications aren't helpful in establishing notability. AusLondonder (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If any voters are from the United States, you'd know that you wouldn't have that extra national federal holiday added in 2021 called Juneteenth.
 * Without this company that would not have been possible. The last federal holiday established in the US was Martin Luther King day in 1986 (35 year lapse) - let that sink in on the notability and power in question here.
 * The company is also called out on Opal Lee's Wiki page.: "In partnership with global marketing agency INVNT Group, she promoted a petition for a Juneteenth federal holiday at Change.org; the petition received 1.6 million signatures. She said, "It's going to be a national holiday, I have no doubt about it. My point is let's make it a holiday in my lifetime." 2603:7000:4D3D:173F:4C2F:9DB5:AE2:E053 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are confusing INVNT Group with INVNT. It was INVNT Group the parent company that promoted the Juneteenth and Opal Lee. Icesnowgeorge (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep as the creator of INVNT Group page (not INVNT), I also oppose lumping these two AFD's after the fact. The parent company's page is distinct from its subsidiary INVNT. It is like lumping Pepsico (which owns 22 subsidiaries) and Pepsi, and saying they are the same and they should both get deleted.
 * I also vote to keep INVNT. Reader's Digest being a credible well known publication is unlikely to break the law and publish sponsored articles without paid disclosures. The Reader's Digest article does not sound overly promotional either. It is just talking about the history of the company and their accomplishments. How else can you write an article without mentioning a company's accomplishments? . Here are some examples of articles on Reader's Digest that have been tagged with word like PROMOTED CONTENT or UNBIASED PARTNERSHIP: 1, 2. This indicates that they do disclose sponsored and paid posts.
 * The citations previously provided by earlier KEEP voters appear satisfactory to me. Trade publications are permissible and not prohibited by the policies. We simply need to scrutinize for signs of sponsored content or PR articles. For instance, these three articles seem authentic to me. For example, these 3 articles here look genuine to me. 1, 2 3
 * Also only EventIndustryNews.com can be considered a trade publication the rest are business publications. It is not accurate that all their citations are trade publicaitons.Icesnowgeorge (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you oppose the AfDs being merged? All contributors have been notified. You have had an opportunity to contribute. What's the practical injustice in merging them? I'm happy for the closing admin to relist it, but it would be bureaucratic silliness to list them separately when the concerns raised apply to both. In any event, If the parent company isn't dealt with in this AfD, I intend to list it separately later anyway. Local Variable (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting a source analysis table would be helpful to this discussion as there is disagreement over the independence of the sources brought into this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see that a few references have been entered here, that speak to the subject's notability, though there are not an abundance of these. Knox490 (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment It's improper to add additional articles for consideration for deletion midway through a deletion discussion. And the way it's been done, XFDCloser, which is the tool we use to close discussions, will not recognize the addition so it will likely be ignored. I encourage the nominator to remove the AFD tag. Any bundling of articles should occur when the nomination is posted, not after. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Liz This has been done. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, I'll consider nominating it separately. Thanks. Local Variable (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

TLA tlak 03:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep – While there are many press releases, after its removal, I feel like there is just enough in Australian trade publications to make this enough for a smaller article.


 * Draftify is another route. TLA  tlak 03:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the table, great work. To me, the obvious conclusion from it is the article falls well short of GNG. Every source has a problem. In my view they can't be summed up to resolve the problem. Nearly all are trade pubs that are just unhelpful in determining notability. Local Variable (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yeah, I get it, there are issues with a lot of the sources. Trade publications are questionable. I'm personally at the weakest weakest keep, as I think there could be enough RS here for a stub or something. TLA  tlak 11:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting this together TLA. Walking through the ones which you identify as counting toward notability, almost all of them are press releases/announcements and/or based largely on what the company says:
 * https://www.sunshinecoastnews.com.au/2024/03/05/global-agency-expands-to-tourist-mecca/ is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business)
 * https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-expands-to-singapore/449496 is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV  (the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business)
 * https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-names-new-ecd/450799 is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel)
 * https://exhibitcitynews.com/invnt-opens-of-london-office-2424/ is a press release, Business Wire, and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops)
 * https://www.adnews.com.au/news/invnt-group-bolsters-apac-team-as-it-celebrates-third-birthday-in-the-region is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel)
 * https://www.campaignasia.com/gallery/case-study-xerocon-brisbane/447174 is written by a marketing executive/"content creator" and based largely on what Laura Roberts, INVNT's managing director, says. This is primary source, not independent and may fail WP:RS.
 * Also the vast majority are trade publications and per WP:TRADES there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Either way, none are  WP:NCORP qualifying sources for WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to add, I agree none meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla  Ohhhhhh, no! 05:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment – I would strongly suggest the consideration of a redirect to INVNT Group for those who believe delete is the choice here, as an WP:ATD. It is verifiable that INVNT is a subsidiary of INVNT Group, so that only makes sense. TLA  tlak 15:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there sources supporting the notability of that company? I don't want us to get sidetracked (you'll see the remonstration above about a late joint nom) but to me it's one the same. Neither is notable. So a redirect might be futile. If a redirect is the outcome that's fine, but I think the target article needs to go through AfD too since it's equally skating on thin ice. Local Variable (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, INVNT Group has an article at the moment. I'm between redirect, draftify, weak keep. Maybe the parent company is on thin ice but we can't assume that until a full discussion. TLA  tlak 12:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to INVNT Group. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The source table above includes "partial" as an option - just to point out, sources cannot be used to establish notability if they don't meet *all* of the criteria. That leaves one source listed as meeting the criteria - except that analysis is flawed and the article is a "puff profile" PR piece for the two featured companies and which fails to include any in-depth information on the topic company.  HighKing++ 22:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to INVNT Group: I have not found adequate sources meeting SIRS. Per HighKing, the source assessment table actually shows that this doesn't meet NCORP. Redirecting is an appropriate ATD. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a redirect to INVNT Group but will likely nom that article given it has some of the same or similar sources. S0091 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This AfD is a quagmire because, regrettably, I didn't know this article existed. I don't think they were Wikilinked (or it wasn't obvious if they were). The closing admin should consider closing this AfD as no consensus, and the two can be renominated together for a joint AfD. A redirect is also fine. Local Variable (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with this. TLA  tlak 14:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Going through the Keep !votes, it is a little confusing as to what the position is currently. For me, none of the sources meet the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. If anyone feels one or other of the sources are being overlooked or unfairly dismissed, can you point to specific sources. It would also be helpful if you also identified specific paragraphs/pages within the sources that you believe contains in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the topic company (not products/services/execs/related companies/etc).  HighKing++ 16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Putting aside obvious problems with some of the keep votes, such as one from a single purpose account and those stating a conclusion without reasoning - the problem is that redirection to the parent company's article has been raised as an ATD, but that article suffers from the same problems as you've identified. Since they weren't joint nom'd, we can't nuke both. The idea is to renominate both and reconsider it. Local Variable (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Local Variable if this is redirected to INVNT Group, then that article is nom'd and consensus is to delete, the redirect will be deleted as well so same outcome. I personally don't see a need to re-discuss this one again unless of course it's closed as no consensus.  S0091 (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Local Variable (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect. TLA  tlak 20:39, 3 April 2024 (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.