Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modernista!


 * 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 Closed as keep. Procedural listing; no delete votes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Modernista!

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

No opinion The article was tagged "prod" as a nonnotable advertising agencey. But this company is it not a mom-and-pop business. Requires broader discussion. `'Míkka>t 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment This article has an active listing on the Deletion Review Page. TimBlount (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Not sure how this should be handled.  This is technically a recreation of deleted content, but the deleted content was apparently vandalism of a valid article.  This sourced article about a non-consumer business does seem to make a reasonable case for notability.  The consensus on WP:DR seems to be to keep the unvandalized version and restore its history.  I tend to agree.  While it's there, it probably shouldn't also be here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, very notable ad company. Their connection to the Hummer ads is well-documented on Google news  .   Corvus cornix  talk  20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Documented and covered in reliable sources such as the NY times and Wall Street Journal. Meets WP:ORG with aplomb.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - very notable company. They did the RED adds among others, lots of well known big name stuff, International as well. Article is well documented. Middle Aged (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * keep - what the do with there website and this article is not the same. The article is fine and the company is not obscure --Walter (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The deletion review has been closed (overturning the speedy deletion). The article content and its history have already been restored, with the article listed here, so this AfD may take it's course.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2008 (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.