Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make Communications


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Make Communications

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This spammy article was created by a SPA and provides no evidence that the firm meets WP:ORG. The claims of notability mainly rest on citations which don't support them: doesn't state that the company is 'one of Queensland's most notable and award-winning' marketing firms,  is a collection of photos of people at a party rather than proof that the firm was "listed as Queensland's most internationally award-winning agency for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008" and  is another blog-like website which doesn't appear to verify that it declared this company the "number 1 independent agency in Queensland, and number 2 overall" and its unclear why that matters even if it did make that claim. The claim that the company was awarded the Australian Australian Marketing Institute’s Marketing Program of the Year award and won many other AMI awards in 2008 appears to be false as the source clearly states that a different two companies jointly won the top award (though a member of Make Communications is included in the photo of winners) and Make isn't listed as being the winner in any of the categories. The other references are blog posts, press releases and links to work the company has done, which it is claimed constitute its "Recent successes" (note the obviously biased heading and lack of independent sourcing). A search in Google Australia for "Make Communications" doesn't turn up any reliable sources on the firm other than its own website:. As such, this seems to be an attempt by a non-notable marketing company to use Wikipedia to market themselves. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, basically per Nick-D's excellent dissection above. Was not able to locate any additional sources, although I concede that the search term "make communications" introduces a lot of noise into any search.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete per nomination: yet another marketing firm using Wikipedia for self-promotion. As the business notability guideline says, purely local coverage does not make a case for notability, and as far as I am concerned, neither do minor awards or trade press coverage that no outsider is likely to have read, that appeared only in organs that serve a specific regional industry, make a case, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Amended to fit criteria Hello, I'm the author of the article (and it's my first so please excuse my noobness). I've removed many of the claims made which cannot be verified (though I do know them to be true. The Campaign Brief hot to cold agency index is not available online, for instance. Can you list a publication as a reference if it appears in print, but not online?). One claim that I have kept in place is the Australian Marketing Institute winners, which are all verifiable through the link provided. Make was a joint winner of the Marketing Program of the Year for their client Youngcare and it is listed in the pdf document of winners as such.

I can understand how cynicism might exist, but I do also think that there some amount of over-correction here. For the record I am not an employee of Make (though I did used to work for them), I haven't listed anything that is false (though I understand that some things need to be more readily verifiable) and I discern a certain amount of 'race to the smackdown' malice that the facts do not account for. If, for instance, you were to google 'advertising depot' which, as the article states was the company's previous name, you would find a lot more sources of information.

I'd like to go through Nick-D's points one by one to clarify.

"[1] doesn't state that the company is 'one of Queensland's most notable and award-winning' marketing firms" I have removed the word 'notable' as it is not verifiable, and have included a citation for the Brisbane Advertising and Design club, which is Queensland's only creative advertising award show and the 2008 winners list shows that Make was the second-most awarded agency, as does the 2007 winners list (AMI is the only other Queensland-based awards show, and Make won Marketing program of the year in 2008 at AMI as per later citations).

"[2] is a collection of photos of people at a party rather than proof that the firm was "listed as Queensland's most internationally award-winning agency for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008"" The link was to an AdNews publication called AdNews80 which listed Make as per the above in print. I have removed this aspect of the article because it's veracity cannot be shown online.

"[3] is another blog-like website which doesn't appear to verify that it declared this company the "number 1 independent agency in Queensland, and number 2 overall" and its unclear why that matters even if it did make that claim." This was in reference to the Campaign Brief hot to cold agency index, which is only available in print, thus I have removed the claim.

"The claim that the company was awarded the Australian Australian Marketing Institute’s Marketing Program of the Year award and won many other AMI awards in 2008 appears to be false as the source clearly states that a different two companies jointly won the top award. (though a member of Make Communications is included in the photo of winners) and Make isn't listed as being the winner in any of the categories." This comment is quite simply wrong, and it the comment for which I think that the dissection is somewhat biased and malicious. The winners list available at this link and shows that Make won marketing program of the year, as well as listing all other winners and finalists for the company. YoungCare is one of Make's clients, and the caption under the Marketing Progam of the Year winners image that Nick-D is referring to reads The happy winning team (from left): Rem Bruijin from make, and from Youngcare Nicholas Bonifant, Simon Lockyear, David Conry, and Matt Lawson'. If you search the pdf document of winners for 'Make', it shows that Make won a total of 7 awards, more than any other agency. To claim that "Make isn't listed as being the winner in any of the categories" crosses the line from simple bias to outright falsity.

If any further issues are a problem I'll be happy to amend the article. Softduality2 —Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Comment The 2008 AMI awards link lists Make only as being among the 'finalists' in several categories, and not 'the winner' in any of them. The company only appears to have been nominated three times anyway by my count. The Marketing Program of the Year winners are clearly named on page 10 of as "Youngcare, for Young people deserve young lives (New brand category winner)" and "University of Sydney Union, for USU Access Benefits Program Enriching the Student Experience (Relationship Marketing Category winner)" - Make Communications is not identified as being the winner of Yongcare's award, even if they had something to do with it. I note that you've just added a bunch of other links to the article which don't support the text they're being used to cite. For instance,  states that the firm had been nominated for a Golden Lion award and that the results were to be announced the next day, not that it had won the award as the article states,  is a dead link so doesn't verify any awards from the New York festival,  is claimed to prove that the company won a Claxton award but actually makes no mention of the company - it doesn't identify the winners and this company isn't even among the nominees, and  doesn't verify the claim that this is one of Queensland's most award winning advertising companies. Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG and concerns about self-promotion. Orderinchaos 18:18, 30 March 2009 (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.