Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Fame


 * 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. Not sure why this was relisted, ignoring the WP:SPA keep votes, this is an A7/G11 Secret account 18:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Media Fame

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about an advertising agency created six months ago. Primary sources, press releases, blogs and non-reliable sources. Fails to meet WP:CORP. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable aggregator of several news, and a quite a large one that is interesting many people. Most of the big important writers and pundits in this field of communication are contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan115 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources to confirm notability of this new firm. AllyD (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough secondary sources are provided. I think that this article follows the guidelines of Wikipedia. --105.158.227.97 (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — 105.158.227.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can find no signficant independent coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article at the time I reviewed this consists of a press release (not indepdendent); a blog ( nota reliable source); another blog (not a reliable source); MediaFame TV (not independent); and Womenofhiphop (no evidence this is a reliable source).-- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 4 July 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.