Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Promotions and Publishing


 * 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) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Media Promotions and Publishing

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Plenty of links to stuff created by the company but I cannot see anybody writing about it. Unsurprisingly, the author's husband works for the company. &mdash; RHaworth 01:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The company verifiably exists, but there is insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources (either provided in the article or identified through my own searches) to establish notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This article was a re-write of a previous article for Expansive Media Ltd which was live on wikipedia for two years and created by an editor with no connection to the company whatsoever. I amended the company name and a few project facts and tried to include as many notable web links as possible. Then after discussion with a Wiki administrator, the site was re-posted in new form on Sunday including more info than the original article ever had. The problem is that I'm very new to Wikipedia so if you could please offer guidance on exactly what the article requires to remain relevant and live I can have a bash at improving it ASAP. There are plenty of web links that mention and discuss Expansive/Media Promotions mostly because of their tussles with the ASA and their critical opinions of UK newspaper promotions. The fact that their promotions frequently land on the front pages of the UK's (and the world's) biggest newspapers has prompted a discussion over editorial independence and integrity - the balance between 'earnt' and 'bought' media coverage. As the authour of the article is it up to me to state these comments or do I need to link to web resources that state them. If and when I find the links where do they get added to the article? In the main body copy (if so how do I do this) or under the section External Links. Apologies in advance for the denseness of any of my questions : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Expansive Media. &mdash; RHaworth 15:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't seem to be much to indicate independent notability of the company. The links in the article seem to be to articles about promotions the company has run but do not seem to cover the company itself. Also written in a fairly promotional manner. OSbornarfcontribs. 18:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the links I was talking about above, they appeared to be media references of promotions the company had run but did not mention the company itself. OSbornarfcontribs. 23:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - spammy COI article (but those aren't deleting offenses) about a non-notable subject. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have this evening added three notable links to news stories regarding Expansive Media. As previously stated I am new to Wikipedia so this took me a while to work out how to edit correctly. All comments are greatly appreciated and, given the opportunity, I aim to amend the article ASAP, as required, to ensure that it remains both relavent and live. Could you please give me a few pointers on what areas of the article are considered 'spammy'. I have attempted to make the piece balanced and the addition of the ASA and Media Week references appear to validate this. Could I be given examples as why this article is spammy or less news worthy than an example such as this UK company : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_Publishing    Many thanks Julie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have looked at the new links added to the article and they appear to be nothing more than republications of press releases issued by Expansive Media. They are therefore not independent.  They also don't seem to contain any information sufficient to write an encyclopaedic article on the topic and therefore may not be significant coverage.  My delete vote above remains unchanged. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Dustformswords: Any thoughts on my previous post asking "Could I be given examples as why this article is spammy or less news worthy than an example such as this UK company : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_Publishing  Thanks Julie 14:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs)
 * response - because Imagine publishes actual magazines (at least eight of which are notable enough to have their own articles), whereas MPP mostly creates advertising campaigns, and their few ventures into actual publishing seem to have been non-notable failures? Remember, also, that "what about this other article here?" is not an argument for the retention of your article, as much as it is an indication that perhaps we should consider whether to delete the other article being pointed to. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thanks for the comment Orange Mike. UK Publishers like Imagine go to Media Promotions when they want to sell more copies of their titles As do much larger publishers like Future, Conde Nast, IPC, BBC Worldwide etc. In addition, Media Promotion's offers (not advertisements) appear on the front pages and editorial pages of national newspapers almost every month of the year in the UK, influencing millions of readers. I'm a little puzzled as to how that fails to be encyclopaedic against some listed genre publications that sell, perhaps, 20,000 copies at most. Maybe in (my acknowledged) naivety I have misinterpreted what Wikipedia is about. I'm also surprised about the process of an admin suggesting the deletion an article, in response to a simple question raised regarding its example comparison. It seems a slightly terse way of answering a query. The original article on Expansive Media was live on wikipedia for two years. It was authored by an editor not connected to the company. It held no links and no notable references yet appears to have been considered notable for a significant period of time. I have simply tried my best to make the new article/entry relevant, accurate and interesting. I'm not attempting to 'argue' or 'justify' anything. I posted comments which asked the advice and suggestions of more experienced Wiki admin's and editors in an attempt to bring the article in line with guidelines and requirements. I'm beginning to build a mental picture of a scary group of admin's wielding their 'deletion' axes for inexperienced users foolish enough to post articles ( btw that's a joke) : ) 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs)
 * reply to comment - I realize I'm generalizing here, but: except within the advertising trade press itself, advertisements ("offer" is a euphemism) are not nearly as notable as actual publications with editorial content. It seems to frustrate the dickens out of marketing people that the campaigns they work on are so widely ignored by the rest of the world; but it's true: the rest of us, with rare exceptions, view what these companies do as noise and clutter, and pay it as little attention as possible. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to Juemason "It held no links and no notable references yet appears to have been considered notable for a significant period of time." is why "What about some other article" is considered an argument to avoid. This discussion is about the article Media Promotions and Publishing, not Expansive Media or Imagine Publishing or any other article. On Wikipedia, "Notability" refers to guidelines, (like the General Notability Guideline) not the dictionary definition. OSbornarfcontribs. 20:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Its a fair point Oramngemike but indulge me to describe a recent notable offer/promotion/pointless advertisement that Media Promotions published. They produced the first media promotion on the Harry Potter franchise for nine years. The stakeholders surrounding the Potter empire had previously never allowed a newspaper to use its branding in any way - being terrified of losing control. Potter's minders previously sought, and were successful in controlling the manner in which all things Potter was described, portrayed and presented to the consumer press. Media Promotions broke down these barriers and ran a program which appeared in the Daily Telegraph (a respected, quality, broadsheet - not a trashy, ad led, tabloid). Media Promotions worked with the papers editors - not the ad team - to run a week long offer - on editorial pages - which gave readers access to previously unreleased Potter archive material, gained access to author and producers, which sent readers to exclusive screenings of the new film, and even sent deserving readers to the theme park in Orlando to undertake 'real' reviews. It may appear pop culture led noise and clutter to more discerning and vertical observers - but its impact on shaping a week of editorial space in, a traditionally contrived and restrictive UK newspaper, was significant, and I would argue, fairly notable. Its not life changing stuff -  but, to some, its arguably more notable than the latest release of Warhammer v.1234569 20:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs)


 * Comment - Thank you OSborn. I'll take another look at the guidelines to attempt to further establish where i've gone wrong. As previously noted, I didn't ask the comparison question above as an 'argument' against deletion, I was attempting to gain some advice from admins on where the article had gone wrong in relation to similar articles. I was keen to gain advice and improve the article's chances of remaining live as much as possible - however I feel i'm fighting a losing battle here. Thanks & regards 20:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs)
 * Comment The latest from Warhammer is of vital importance to thousands of Warhammer fans (not me - although it does look quite well done). An 'offer' in the press is a transient, and those who take up the offer, or buy the merchandise - whichever way it's looked at, think the offer is from the paper or comic concerned. They've never heard of you. Sorry to possibly sound rude, but you're in a similar position to a company whose article was deleted recently. They made own-brand goods for some big name outfits. Yes, they had a big turnover. No, they had no coverage because outside the small number (by comparison with Warhammer fans...) of big name outfits and their own workforce, no-one had heard of them. You have a possibly better chance of proving coverage in independent sources - they hadn't a chance. Nothing they marketed had their name on it. They had no scandals. They were doing a good job - must have been or they'd have been dropped like a hot brick. Big names can cope with outside brands exploding on the shelf, but will not put up with their own-brand doing anything nasty. If their cans had exploded, they might have got an article... But they were non-notable. The names the produced for didn't cascade notability down to them. Now, if you can show that people outside the marketing departments (and us, now...) have heard of you, you stand a chance. But always remember, the gaffer's third assistant ('Who? What's he do?) will get a line in the film credits - but not an article here. The girl that sells the ice cream is seen by hundreds of people - but doesn't even get a credit. And definitely no article (unless she regularly laced the tubs with something interesting and then got caught...). Peridon (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thanks Peridon. I think I get the..er.. giste although I was losing the thread slightly with the hot bricks, ice cream and laced tubs. Apologies if I offended any Warhammer fans, Warries or Hammerheads - whatever their handle is. If I get the chance I'll have a go at improving the references on the article as you suggest.  22:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juemason (talk • contribs)
 * 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.