Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.D. Gordon Creative Labs


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

J.D. Gordon Creative Labs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable marketing firm with five employees with an article that relies primarily on cites from the company website or routine reposting of press releases. CorporateM (Talk) 05:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm concerned that this article existed for months, but the nominator brought this to AfD on the same day that I mentioned the article to Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation. We shouldn't condone the chilling effect of "punishing" articles that are used for purposes of discussion of Wikipedia's problems.  I know this is not an acceptable "Keep" criterion, so I will also say that the nominator has falsely described the sources referenced by the article.  This news article is not a "routine reposting of press releases".  Several citations point to Graphic Design USA, which describes itself as "the news magazine for graphic designers and other creative professionals".  It does not appear to be driven by press releases.  Assuredly, there are "borderline" qualities about J.D. Gordon Creative Labs, but they are no different than tens of thousands of other articles about small businesses that exist on Wikipedia.  We certainly shouldn't begin a purge with the one article that was presented almost at random to the WMF director only hours ago, especially on false pretenses of poor sourcing. - I&#39;m not that crazy (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * INTC summarizes the article fairly in his comments to Sue Gardner: "The content appears to be factual, if self-serving. There are numerous references sourced, pathetic as they may be, but at least they verify that this company exists and does produce award-winning output." (except for the "award-winning" part - this is an industry that gives out a multitude of awards, they would be more notable if they hadn't received any awards). Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I think it does not meet the criteria for notability. I dont think that because of the way this page came to light is should be kept. I looked at the siouxcityjournal article, but I dont think this makes them a notable company. Ottawakismet (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I looked at each of the sources, and the nominator's claim that the article is only sourced to press releases is incorrect. The topic has received a lot of coverage in the Sioux City Journal, and appears to be notable. Westin Dodger 17:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the Sioux Journal sources mentioned in this discussion are not being fairly represented. This one lists J.D. Gordon itself as the source of the article and this one just mentions Gordon in the caption of the image as image-credit. It does not support the text of the article. This is a routine re-written press release regarding a promotions announcement. The awards are all from primary sources from the organization granting the award, rather than profile stories or secondary sources that explain their significance. Such a Wikipedia article is misleading to readers, because it imparts the sense that these awards have been determined to be significant by independent editors, when they rarely are. Waggener Edstrom (see here) is a good example of awards done properly, by including those mentioned in profile stories from secondary sources independent of the award itself. user:Smallbones is correct that we have to be especially careful in the marketing/advertising field, where awards are abundant and often paid for. Anyways, in regards to the AfD discussion itself, the guidelines are WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORP. I don't see any proper sources that cover the org in depth. CorporateM (Talk) 23:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, salt, and consider blocking the authors - as INTC says the sourcing is "pathetic", the main "external source", the Sioux City paper, briefly notes in about 4 short articles that the company promoted a couple of people, moved into a new office, produced a poster for a non-profit, and (the most interesting one) takes photographs of food, but not as well as the folks in Minneapolis do. In a new low for sourcing, the Podunk College alumni news had a line or two about an employee. In short - no RS, no WP:V.  The article is also "self serving " quoting INTC again, or IMHO the article is an advertisement for the firm.  It doesn't actually say much beyond something like "The company is open for business" and when that's all there is, it's an ad.  It violates the policy WP:NOTADVERTISING.  Since this is a policy, the authors could be blocked, and we should consider that - if we thought that they'd come back and do it again perhaps in some other articles.  My feeling is that they are only interested in advertising this company, so that there is no need to block them at present. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well... ads usually say things like "buy now" and "see why our clients love us" - the NPOV problems are noticeable, but mild. And blocks are not intended for any editor that violates a policy, but for those that can't seem to control themselves, are acting in obvious bad-faith, or show no prospects of being a useful participant. In this case it would be better to simply explain the COI policy and ask them to use AfC in the future, if at all. The author may only be interested in this page at the moment, but staff move around quickly. Rather than act with hostility, we can gently persuade editors to understand that their goals cannot be served here. I'm too lazy to dig it up, but user:OrangeMike asked me a while back to help him deal with an editor "shilling for a client" and I felt it turned out to be a great example of doing this.  CorporateM (Talk) 03:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You should know better. Ads don't need to have anything like "buy now" in them.  The simplest kind just state that they have a product or service available for sale - and that's done here.  And then there are things like "corporate image advertising".  But even that doesn't matter: marketing, promotion, and advertising are all prohibited by the policy WP:NOT.  If you don't want to call this advertising, then surely you must call it promotion or marketing.
 * As far as blocking the authors - I don't say that's the best way to handle this - only that by breaking policy the authors have put themselves in jeopardy of being blocked, i.e. "consider blocking."Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. I would call it promotional and an NPOV problem, just wouldn't go as far as calling it an advertisement. CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Smallbones, if you say that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles about entities that have little more coverage than to say they are "open for business", could you please explain why Wikipedia has an advertisement called List of Wikimedia chapters, or an advertisement called Kat Walsh, or an advertisement called Ecology Summit (which was clearly written for or by one of Jimmy Wales' "drinking buddies", Richard Stromback). Get your and others' hypocrisy in check, and then we can work on an objective solution to COI editing problems. - I&#39;m not that crazy (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. in particular
 * "Keep You say this article is promotional, but there are other articles just as promotional as this one. – Blay Tant Marqueter"
 * As far as you calling me a hypocrite, all I see is name-calling on your part and rather blatant marketing by you for allowing blatant marketing on Wikipedia - something we've never allowed. There's no reason to take any of your claims seriously. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Typical Wikipedian response there. When presented with embarrassing evidence that Wikipedia's insiders are incapable of applying WP:NOTE in an objective, even-handed manner... simply dismiss the claims as "no reason to take them seriously".  Well done.  You fit the mold. - I&#39;m not that crazy (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course Wikipedians aren't capable of applying wp:GNG in an objective, even handed manner. In order to do so would mean each Wikipedian looking at all 4.4 million articles, and then investigating all the sources on all of them.  This is obviously humanly impossible.  Asking for superhuman endeavours from Wikipedians is going to get you nowhere.  What Wikipedians can do is browse, try to spot anything too egregious, and then discuss whether that should be deleted.  This is not a reliable process any more than turning 10,000 gardeners loose on a rainforest would be.  But if there's worse out there there's nothing stopping you from nominating it yourself.  wp:GNG is generally applied fairly objectively and evenhandedly when an article reaches AfD (and if not they fail; the problems you cite are because articles haven't been nominated.  Not because they aren't given a fair shake when they get here. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the Ecology Summit page, which was mostly soapboxing, promotion and original research. At a very brief glance, the list page looks potentially acceptable, but the Kat Walsh page is only sourced to press releases. Maybe someone else will be bold enough to clean it up or nominate it. I believe Richard Stromback meets our very low notability requirements for professional sports players, but most of that article could be deleted. CorporateM (Talk)


 * The discussion about this article brings up many valid points as well as many not so valid points. First, having experience in the industry to which J.D. Gordon Creative Labs belongs, I would like to clarify a couple of things. Addy awards are not paid for. They are given by nomination and vote of your peers in your industry and members of the Advertising Federation. These awards should not be discounted as insignificant.  Also, the citations from Graphic Design USA and How Magazine should also not be discounted, both of these are widely read throughout the industry, and objective. The number ofawards given to this firm is noteworthy and in many cases exceeds the count given to more widely-known firms.  Additionally, a simple internet search shows additional sources of information about this firm that is not cited in the article.  The size of the firm, as commented earlier, is not relevant to its alleged lack of notoriety as there are many smaller companies of equal or greater note.  There are problems with the citations in the article as far as diversity of sources, and it appears that more are available.  I also agree that the tone of the article does have the tone of advertisement, however, it is difficult to not paint an unintentional positive light on a firm of any size or notoriety without some form of equally bad press about the subject.  Deletion of this article could lead to a precedent by which a large percentage of articles, particularly in the field of advertising, should be deleted.  Perhaps the discussion on this article should be more about improving and refining objectivity, and less about removal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incense40 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Blatant puffery. Coretheapple (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  07:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This, and a considerable number of other such articles should also be deleted, and I've been nominating them when I see them--we need to be considerably more careful before initially accepting them. Minuscule business. No evidence that the awards are major. I don;t see this as promotional in content, but an editor without COI would not normally write on such an extremely borderline subject. Thats one of the problems of COI, as much as what they put into the article.  DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails wp:NCORP. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2013 (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.