Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maiden Media 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maiden Media Group

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

PR/marketing company that does not meet the notability standards of WP:CORP. Biggest claim to fame is "top ten finalist for the Young Entrepreneurs of the Delaware Valley Award". Sources cited are blogs, trivial, or PR releases. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CORP. no extensive coverage. just 2 gnews hits . look forward to someone arguing this somehow amounts to significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep to Keep The company has been covered by two non trivial sources including a routine announcement from The New York Times and the Princeton Packet. The full article is not posted on the internet, however is available in print. It has also been covered by trivial, but reliable sources, such as, wwptoday. This is an emerging company and has had clients including Busta Rhymes and the Dallas Mavericks. Valoem   talk  13:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A "routine announcement" in the NYT *is* trivial. And how does being an "emerging company" (see WP:UPANDCOMING) or having famous clients satisfy WP:CORP?  NawlinWiki (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The AfD needs more discussion before consensus can be reached. I was referring to the source being non-trivial, not the coverage; also coverage from WWPinfo is distinctly non-trivial. This company is professionally registered as a private marketing firm and has had coverage from notable non-trivial sources and local sources. All information on the wikipage can be independently verified by third party sources. I removed advert vandals, self-promotions, and the companies has a significant number of notable clients. Significant coverage is arguable, however, according to WP:FAILN if a page’s notability is questionable and has the appropriate level of detail and significance for that article, avoids self-promotion, and only includes information that can be independently verified than deletion should not be the primary option and should default to merge or NC. I recommend a keep or merge with possible marketing companies. However since no such merge exist yet I believe the article’s AfD should be kept until such redirects are possible. Valoem   talk  14:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. 16:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 04:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.