Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markco media


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 20:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Markco media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. No significant coverage. Refs are to corporate listings, a single negative review a website owned by the company, a single positive review by an obscure website and mentions of the website owned by this company in compilation lists of other discount websites. Skrelk (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I nominated as prod or rather I seconded the nomination, i agree that there is issues with notability and should be Deleted Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there - I've included the Mail Online - the most prominent online newspaper site - who've named the site as their website of the week. It was listed by The Sunday Times in their top list of 100 technology companies. The founder is a prominent, prestigious, award-winning entrepreneur, as his page suggests. I'm aware that you no doubt work to moderate many pages, but to succinctly describe a company like Markco Media as 'not notable' - and having achieved 'no significant coverage' seems churlish to me. The coverage achieved by companies MyVoucherCodes and CouponCodes4U every week, on high profile media outlets such as the New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, TechCrunch, The Next Web and more, denote notability and the fact the company is of public interest, to me. I'd very much like to improve the page, but wasn't sure which areas you felt weren't up to par. Please do advise. Goodandbadpr (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Goodandbadpr - you should be aware that paid editing is very much frowned upon here. Your username and edit history strongly suggests you have a close association with the company being paid to promote MyVoucherCodes and their parent company. Editing here on behalf of PR agency clients is an obvious conflict of interest and you should really cease doing so immidiately. Stalwart 111  12:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Goodandbadpr-I looked it up myself, and I couldn't find anything about any o these sites on the NYT. Mail Online included what looked like more or less filler coverage, mentioned other websites and wasn't very prominent. Same for the sunday times. The other mentions were similar. It's not significant coverage.Skrelk (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Goodandbadpr is indefinitely blocked. There's a clear COI here with this editor's articles. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No notability and serious COI issues. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Inclusion in the Sunday Times list suggests that this is a company to watch. Since this is a london based company the lack of refernece in NYT (presumably New York Times) should be of no relevance.  I nevertheless consider that the article lacks substance.  It needs to be substantially improved before I could vote to keep; on the other hand I am reluctant to vote to delete.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 5 January 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.