Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBJ London


 * 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 22:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

MBJ London

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

From Promotional writing of an article to references. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. all references are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. company only mention the Investment news where thousands of company gets seed, angel or any kind of funding on daily basis on each part of the world. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. It will be flooded with thousands of worldwide funding company daily. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article's references are largely a mixture of primary (the PR item and The Guardian piece by an employee), about an award co-organised by the firm and passing start-up coverage. The most substantial is the Deutschlandfunk item about the firm seeking to start operating in Berlin, but that too is essentially propositional coverage. I am seeing nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH to demonstrate that this website firm is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can folks stop using "promotional tone" as a reason to delete an article? That's a reason to clean up an article. With regards to this one... references 1 and 6 don't represent depth of coverage, reference 2 is a press release, reference 3 isn't about the company, and references 4 and 5 are from questionably reliable sources. At least for now, this doesn't pass WP:CORP.  A  Train ''talk 08:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't directly a reason (unless it's so bad as to inspire calls for WP:TNT, but it's indicative that an article subject isn't actually notable because the article wouldn't exist unless created promotionally rather than because it was organically noteworthy enough that an uninvolved third party would create it. Also, people despise spam - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:A Train's point and am wary of based anything on sensibilities about what we may dislike. However I also stress that encyclopaedic purpose needs to be maintained, especially with companies. Firms have departments whose entire day job is to obtain media coverage, which is far easier nowadays with minimal entry costs to publication. However, in this and other company AfD discussions, my view is that a very high bar is needed: that the media coverage to demonstrate notability should already be quasi-encyclopaedic in itself, i.e. involving exercise of critical discernment. Without that, Wikipedia is just one more PR outlet. AllyD (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is the repetition, the accusation of promotionalism used as a siren call in nominations and !votes. It has devolved to the point where people who concentrate on WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues are ignored because of their past history of crying wolf, or they are simply used as a Streisand effect pointer to find interesting articles that need cleanup.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Apart from the promotional sources in the article, a basic WP:BEFORE shows little to no non-PR or non-PR-initiated coverage in WP:RSes apart from passing mentions (there's one PR-initiated story about WB21 that drops their name). No indication of organic third-party coverage, which strongly suggests they're not actually noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Wikipedia is not a directory of unremarkable private tech companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising alone and this it helps the fact there's no actual notability, the current contents and sources are simply advertising which was literally contributed by a few several recently started and heavily-focused accounts for only this 1 article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:47, 24 October 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.