Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing Mine


 * 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) 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Marketing Mine

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

Declined speedy. Article is blatant advertising for a company that is barely a month old and has not achieved notability. The supposed "sources" are either non-existent, do not mention this company, or are self published. I still think it's a speedy, but others apparently disagree, so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article in its current form is blatant spam. The article was de-spammified by, who declined the speedy, and then the spammy content was re-added by the creator, . The references in both versions of the article are blatant puffery. They are either a) press releases or b) invalid urls. A Google News Archive search for sources returns no relevant results. IMO, this should have been speedily deleted; the article made no assertion of importance to pass A7. Cunard (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Are these sources legit?, and   Both are written specifically about the company.  The other sources I have found are all very transparently press-releases: .  I think all but the first article may simply be the same re-published release.  The first article seems more legit to me though.  I'd say to keep the article if we can find two or more reliable sources covering it in the same detail as the first one.  Cazort (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The first source is a legitimate source that I somehow missed when I was going through the references in the article. The second source is and reads like a press release, so in total, this article contains only one reliable source. My delete stands, but if you are able to uncover another reliable reference, I will switch my vote to keep. Cunard (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel particularly compelled to look for more, especially given the spamming situation. :-)  Cazort (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The one from Adotas is the only ref that even comes close, and it is an industry-insider website, I'm not sure they meet the bar of WP:RS either. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Markovich292  05:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Ged  UK  13:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, not sure why speedy was declined. Spammy article about a non-consumer business, not referenced to anything other than local or quasi-local (i.e. advertising industry related, non-general-interest) publications.  Reads like an ad brochure, and therefore ought to be deleted even if the business were notable.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Industry mags/websites can rarely be considered reliable. Most of the material is supplied by the companies themselves, but even when written by the magazine staff they are under great pressure to keep it positive.  I agree the article reads like spam and in the absence of any truly RS, I am for deleting.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  17:14, 1 April 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.