Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out Now Consulting (2nd Nomination)


 * 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 While there has been extensive discussion about the company and the article the questions on WP:N, WP:CORP have still to be addressed along with the concerns of WP:COI and WP:SOAP. I note that the previous AfD from August 2006 had similar concerns at that time the AfD was closed as no consensus. Also the article has under gone a lot of editing since it was list here, with a number of sources added including some that are WP:RS these sources are used to support only incidental information they offer nothing to the establishment of Notability. Comments on this AfD in general, as this isnt a vote but a discussion the box tallying "votes" and comparing this to an editors number of edits is meaningless and should not be used again. For the editors making accusations of cabals against other editors I recommend that you take your greivances to WP:RFC, it not uncommon for Australian editors to comment on Australian articles. Deletion of the article doesnt necessarily preclude recreation provided the new article addresses all concerns raised in the two afd's and its recreation has been supported through WP:DRV. Gnangarra 11:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Out Now Consulting

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I would love to delete this as CSD A7/G11, however a previous discussion on deletion resulted in no consensus, so this is now a procedural listing. Basically, i'm calling out this article as Vanispamcruftisement particularly given it's origins as created by an author with a clear conflict of interest, plus the organisation doesn't pass the I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground test. The article reads like an ad, would require a significant re-write to become encyclopaedic. This is not withstanding the use of weasel words within the article. Looking at the ghits and the references already included in the article, the majority of these seem to be primary sources being from company PR, their own websites, and the like. Thewinchester (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly an advert - agreed with the nomination, it would be difficult to see how this article for a consulting and marketing firm could be made encyclopaedic. Orderinchaos 18:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC) To add some substance to my vote, it appears that the company only has six employees (all but one in Australia) and an unknown clientele, according to an article in the International Herald Tribune which is basically a promo piece for the company's owner. Orderinchaos 13:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I work in advertising and have seen this company sourced as an authority on gay marketing in industry media quite a few times over the years, and they have been involved in gay marketing for longer than most other companies in the world from what I can make out. Perhaps someone should edit it rather than delete it, maybe some stuff could go but there seems to be quite a few references from third parties acknowledging this company as notable in its field, which I have seen for myself. (Just an observation -- I don't think Thewinchester comments belong in an encyclopaedia as a serious discussion on the article as the remarks are pretty rude. Be bold does not mean be crass.) In relation to the original authoring of the article, I saw that in the last discussion that was all made perfectly clear who had written it originally but it seems to be a completely different article, backed up with a lot of third party notations, since that first discussion. A fair amount of third party references are cited - not written by or anything to do with company PR. JeffStryker 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * JeffStryker - You might need to go away and come back when you've read WP:AGF along with the cited policies. This is a procedural listing and any suggestion or assumption be it written, implied, or veiled, that the deletion of this article is apart of some anti-gay agenda/conspiracy is patently false. If you disagree with the reasons for deletion, I would strongly encourage you to make significant improvements to bring it in to line with policy and help it survive this AfD. Thewinchester (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Still Keep Thewinchester misunderstood me and I misunderstood her/him. Where I come from 'ghits' is a very bad insult and I think now that it is meaning google hits. I noticed on "Out Now Consulting" UK google sites that Out Now has a fair few hits that may make it notable - I think I will take your advice and have a look at the sites referencing this company to see which make it into notable for WP:CORP. I am a bit concerned by suggestions made here to mark their notability down because the company clearly has got a few media releases out there - their site says PR is one of their key services so it obviously makes sense to see a lot of these in the google engines I guess. Will dig deeper and consider your suggestion to consider editing.JeffStryker 12:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:CORP semper fictilis  19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete weakly. Marketing consultancies need to pass a much higher bar, IMO, than, say, fish food brands. There are several reasons: marketing consultancies tend to lack physical plants, and do not generally sell their products directly to consumers, so the sort of independent commentary we look for may be elusive. Also, being in the business of promotion, they are going to be looked at much more closely for conflict of interest. This business may be somewhat unusual, in that it proposes to help businesses tailor ad campaigns to the interests of gay people. I am not yet convinced that it has much note or recognition outside the world of marketing consultants. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In relation to Smerdis of Tlön I note what I commented on below about the notability of this company in relation to the general topic of Ghits on gay marketing which is a wikipedia topic. This company is in the top 10. The other company currently in wikipedia Witeck-Combs Communications, Inc. do not figure in that same Google hits search until around position 130. Agnetha1234 15:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC) — Agnetha1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The conflict of interest issue does not seem relevant here - this article seems to bear little or no content from original when first authored. JeffStryker 23:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I wrote a masters thesis last year on the interactions of gay sociology and the economy -- and relied a lot on various published findings of Out Now's work. I just checked and they are currently quoted in news online on the issue of Ireland's coming general election in the Irish Times, and last month they were quoted at length about advertising to gays in Variety magazine - US and also on the issue of BPs Lord Browne in the UK and workplace discrimination against gays. That is just the last few weeks of media coverage to Out Now's work and opinions. There just is very little else out there and Out Now has done more of this gay social and market research work than practically any other company. I know as I researched the area so extensively last year. It may not be your cup of tea but in my opinion it is really important to allow this information to be in Wikipedia for those people trying to research the area, like I was. JudyRobinson 22:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC) — JudyRobinson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * To those choosing to comment on the article, you need to keep in mind the policy angle here on WP. The article in it's current state fails the notability criteria for corporations and companies, and despite AfD's and significant awareness of the need for improvement, no significant attempts have been made and the article attracts POV editors. Additionally, as cited and demonstrated in the previous AfD, the article was created by an editor with a conflict of interest, being someone clearly directly involved with the company and it's operations, an issue which WP frowns upon. Thewinchester (talk) 11:27, May 20, 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be a case where the research is notable but the agency itself is not. We are debating the notability of the company, not its research - the latter would merit its inclusion in articles relating to gay social and market research and other fields in which they have been involved. For example, in a recent FA Hamersley, Western Australia, the entities Stirling Times, Glendale Primary School and Hamersley Gazette are definitely worth covering in the article, but creating an article on them would see them deleted per WP:CORP or other WP:N grounds. Orderinchaos 05:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand your point Orderinchaos and note the comment about market research and company notability distinction. I think though that in the area of market research, there is almost nobody else doing this, and certainly not in so many countries, and the secondary sourse coverage I have see has been of two kinds - coverage of the company itself - the Australian TV link from yesterday I would class as that category, and coverage of the company's research. I note what someone else said that the company is a market research company as well as advertising and in much of the media coverage of their research coverage also includes coverage of the company itself too - I guess because practically nobody else is doing this. I still think this article meets WP:N] notability] requirements, and more so since the edits that went on earlier today. The topic of the article seems [[WP:N] notable] as per [[WP:CORP, and I can see from several links in the current version of this article that notability is verified in several secondary sources. The WP style of the article itself is a vast improvement on its previous format. By the way, if Glendale Primary School, Stirling Times and Hamersley Gazette were the only schools or newspapers of their kind then I could agree with your comment about notability, but the agency in this article has a uniqueness, by virtue of its area of work, which goes almost entirely to its notability in a way that your examples would not appear to do. JudyRobinson 06:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:CORP. Does not appear to be particularly notable as far as marketing firms go. Lankiveil 02:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep - The notability concerns seem well met by some of the references this company is cited by. In relation to Orderinchaos comments about notability of the company research - the company itself seems to be in no small measure a market research agency and so significant media coverage and industry recognition of their research is in effect coverage of one of the company's key activities, where the company is the only source quoted as 'the experts' in this area, just like many other wiki articles on notable companies involved in the research business. They seem to qualify to keep on basis of recognition by multiple secondary sources especially the full page citation of the company in a Dr. Philip Kotler marketing text book - in marketing terms that is very major coverage. I also think that the unique nature of the market for this company renders them more likely to be notable than if they were just a marketing consultancy in the general market. The Ghits issue in relation to the specific are of "Gay marketing" places this company in the top 10 and that looks like wiki corporate notability to me. Agnetha1234 15:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC) — Agnetha1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong keep - I came across this very article for the first time last year when we were set a gay marketing topic assignment. I found the article was the only place in all the research I did where I could find so much data about the gay market and also detailed advice from the company about gay marketing. There are other companies I cited in my research like Prime access and witeck combs but they had done nowehere near as much in the area as Out Now had. I agree with the Agnetha1234 comment - this company is in textbook and research terms very important to include here. Their notability was pretty clear to me when i looked at some of the current article references. They were recognised and gave a keynote at the most important travel show in the world, which was how I first discovered them. I don't agree with the Thewinchester comments above that the origins of the article make it conflict of interest - almost everything in this article is from after the last afd discussion and I can't see where the original author has had input to this version. I am keep also as per Agnetha1234 reasons as well. Pecheling 16:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC) — Pecheling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I have not been a big wikipedia contributor true, but I didn't realise that meant I was not meant to be taken seriously in a debate like this. Just a note for the other editors - I have made few edits but most have been "outside this topic", unless commenting on other gay related articles counts as all being "on this topic". I still think the article is worth keeping in WP for all the other reasons given here. I also note earlier mention was made of WP:AGF which seems relevant to me given all that has been said on notability here. Pecheling 08:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep More than enough sources that confirm notability. Maybe some editing to make it a bit more NPOV would make it strong keep. Also why not move the quoted research links to a new section in the article, since based on discussion students seem to want them for research reasons and both student wiki users and wiki edit guidelines might be well served to identify gay market research that way within the article. I do agree with someone's comment above that when they get quoted by mainstream media all over the world so often someone clearly sees them as being notable as a reference source and again the multiple nature of that I think meets WP notability required. EarthaKitt 17:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC) — EarthaKitt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong Keep I have reviewed several articles about Out Now Consulting... I think it is a good resource to keep in WP. 69.230.202.178 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC) — 69.230.202.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Deletion discussions are not a vote, but a process of review where the article is reviewed in the context of relevant policy, and considered argument and discussion occur to determine if the content is suitable to remain based on this. Thewinchester (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note see long comment below re WP:CORP policy and this not being a voteJeffStryker 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This debate seems to have been sidetracked entirely into a discussion of Google hits from a lot of redlinked editors. Note that the primary bar here is notability - which means coverage in independent sources (remembering this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper or a prospectus) - and verifiability against those sources for every claim made in the article. I see nothing in any of the above which provides this. Also note that AfD is not a vote - see the instructions for AFD. Orderinchaos 19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't agree that the discussion has been sidetracked. The Dutch textbook citing them mentioned by others does render notable per notability as well as the Australian TV report about what they do meeting that and being verifiable. I think the Google remarks started above because of me because I mistook what "Ghits" meant in an early remark, but it also was one of the reasons cited by the nominee of the afd that started the discussion. When you get past the first few google pages there seem to be numerous citations referencing the company as being notable in their area of work. I also edited out material in the article I think may have been viewed as less than encyclopaedic. JeffStryker 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Editing note Deleted marketing cruft. Added a link to an Australian report profiling company. Added BBC online and Independent newspaper reports citing Out Now. There were actually hundreds of publications I found citing their opinions from many countries but tried to keep them on article topic. I think it can maybe still do with some trimming but based on what others are saying about using them as an important reference for research on gay market research data, I was reluctant to remove those links at this stage - but I did move market research to its own identified section in the article. JeffStryker 20:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In terms of additional Manual of Style improvements this article badly needs, i'd strongly suggest also adding the companies infobox, categorisation of it within the correct companies group, and updating all the references in the article to use the correct citation templates. Thewinchester (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Added a company info box to this article in line with Thewinchester suggestion.
 * I am okay to do the citation templates too - but no time right now, will get to it.
 * Added company category listings per Thewinchester suggestion. JeffStryker 23:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment for closing admin Please be advised that this AfD seems to be attracting a significant number of editors supporting the Keep view who have an extremely limited history of contributions on Wikipedia (Average of 25 or less contribs per user) which needs to be taken into consideration during the closing phase. Thewinchester (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment for closing admin Please be advised that this AfD seems to be attracting a significant number of editors supporting the Delete view who are all located in one single State of Australia as per their user page who seem to have commented in concert at times. JeffStryker 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Non-notable organisation, any independent sources simply quote the organisation (With probably self-supplied information by that organisation) rather than actually talk about the company (read WP:N *carefully* - it isn't just "quoted in some magazine somewhere", it practically has to have a book written about *it*). Also I've looked up a few iconic marketing agencies in Australia none of which have an article even though they have designed some of Australia's most instantly memorable TV and print ads. Most marketing organisations are not notable. Also as a gay person who does read a few community magazines I have never heard of it personally. DanielT5 04:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As a corollary to my own comments - I was just looking in my Commerce textbook and noticed several "full page case studies" which are basically nothing short of paid advertisements written in an academic tone. DanielT5 04:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment DanielT5 - you would have noticed then that WP:N says that notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity" - so whether you or others have actually heard of the organization personally is not relevant here. Your remark about "a few iconic marketing agencies" is vague to say the least but I would imagine there would be other - many the subject of WP articles - agencies - iconic or otherwise - that are the subject of articles. The deciding issues here according to WP policies are: has Out Now received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and each other? In my look through the cited links but also a lot more that are out there, you would have to answer that it has, whether you personally have seen them or not. For the record - the coverage in the Philip Kotler marketing textbook I have here and I can advise you it is no paid advertisement. In the context of a section of the body of the 'Principes van Marketing' textbook called "Marketingsegmentatie en positionering" under the heading 'Strategies For Segmentation', on page 366 (ISBN: 90-430-1071-5) there is a full page and a quarter about Out Now. Amongst the things they say about them there is - "Out Now Consulting is a specialised gay marketing bureau (agency). It has been working in this area for fifteen years and has offices in other countries as well as the Netherlands and Australia. Clients include IBM, Toyota, KLM, Citibank. (They then include pictures for gay advertising for travel to South Africa and say) This is a campaign they created for Lufthansa..." It goes on to talk about other aspects of the company and its work. No other marketing organizations are mentioned there and it is about the company itself. They do not usually want to waste good editorial text in such an important textbook on irrelevancies. I do not of course think this would qualify of course as having a book "written about *it*" by any means but last time I looked most subjects you find in WP do not have books written about them, nor does that seem to be listed anywhere as a notability requirement. A final note on this - a topic being cited by a Philip Kotler textbook as a secondary source and it is about the topic of this article would meet the test for a reliable secondary source that "reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." In relation to the subject at hand, [Philip Kotler] is as authoritative as you can get. If your own reading of community publications is yet to bring you into contact with the subject of this article that does not make them non-notable for WP. JudyRobinson 07:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just found amongst my thesis research papers a half page file article that appeared as an insert from "Het Financieele Dagblad" - a Dutch daily newspaper that inserts an English language insert into the International Herald Tribune in the Netherlands market. It is dated February 5, 2002 and on page 2 is a large photo of Ian Johnson. The article is headed "Tapping into the €400 bn (euro) gay market", subhead is "Marketing group Out Now advises clients on ways of targeting 'pink' euro". It's copy starts "Firms across Europe have long treated the gay and lesbian market as an unknown quantity. Now, Australian marketeer Ian Johnson, who in 1993 founded a consultancy focusing exclusively on the gay and lesbian market in Australia, has opened an office in Amsterdam to help clients tap into what he considers a highly lucrative market..." It goes on for almost a half a broadsheet newspaper page. That seems to be another highly notable secondary reliable verifiable source this discussion should also include. I am not sure if there is allowed to be attached jpeg scans to a WP article maybe someone could assist me with advice on that - I will see if there is, and later today, when I get time, will scan and try to include in the discussion if that is possible. JudyRobinson 07:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * International Herald Tribune - NL edition - report on Out Now - I uploaded a copy of the article I mentioned. I did not know if it would be suitable for WP so I just opened a flickr account and left the image at flickr for editors to see. The article seems clearly to meet WP:N guidelines for WP:CORP in relation to the article's subject. JudyRobinson 09:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say this article should be notable under WP:N for WP:CORP on the basis of at least three of the secondaries mentioned above, namely the Australian TV report, the textbook inclusion by Philip Kotler and the International Herald Tribune report on them. I have also seen and quoted them in my studies from the Kotler text here in the Netherlands. 83.84.33.33 10:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC) — 83.84.33.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions.   -- WjBscribe 13:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Multinational advertising company with international coverage. I suppose more detailed coverage in sources would be preferable, but the fact it is covered at all (and in such diverse sources) leads me to believe the company is notable. Content has been improved since the AfD started and additional sources added. Looks like it meets WP:CORP to me. Articles about companies, especially PR ones will always carry some risk of advertising, but I think this company meets our inclusion standards. Anything beyond that is just cleanup. WjBscribe 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment With due respect to WJBscribe, the core issue is the higher standard that needs to be met for a marketing firm in relation to WP:CORP and WP:N, and this does not meet the policy in spirit, and by the very thinnest of margins meets it in letter. As the vast majority of the content the subject puts out is for the primary purpose of self-promotion of it's business and services, often thinly disguised as research and new information, it's a primary sources issue. It's the whole Letter Vs. Spirit debate, and on face while it may meet the cited policies, it does not come close to meeting the policies intent (spirit). I have seen thin attempts from some contributors to cite selected references from selected people to push the POV regarding it's notability. As commented by a friend I spoke to earlier this evening "the most credible sources are the ones who say what you want to hear". Thewinchester (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "by the very thinnest of margins meets it in letter". That satisfies me. Articles about marketing firms need to be watched closely to ensure they are not used for overt promotion (though we have to face the fact that having an article on Wikipedia has a promotional advantage). What I don't see is that the bar needs to be significantly raised when the subject is a marketing firm - certainly nothing in our policies says so. You are right to be weary of the use of Wikipedia for promotion, but I am unpersuaded that articles about marketing firms are subject of any different notability criteria than those about any other companies. WjBscribe 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I spent a l-o-n-g time reading through the above discussions and clicked through I think to all the links, and most in the article itself as it now stands. I think out of all the above - and there is a lot there to go through - I most agree with the observations of WjBscribe. This article seems to meet the notability tests set down for inclusion in WP. In passing, I do note that the topic of the article seems to have clear value to some WP users. It has recently been well edited since the initial nomination. It is not a major topic to all users of WP by any means - though most of the articles here probably fall into that category - but some people that are into this topic seem to have watchlisted it, which I probably understand. Perhaps the nominator for deletion is confusing the PR and research work that is a necessity for a company such as this - and, by the way, for many modern companies these days - with the fact that the company the subject of this WP article has, as was pointed out by several others above, been seen as notable by some very solid reputable secondary sources, amongst the strongest possible really, and independent of the company itself, and more than once. Generating PR for clients is not unusual for a PR/marketing company and generating PR for one's own company is now a fairly standard accepted modern business practice. Eventually what swung me convincingly to 'keep' in this case is the strength of a number of the secondary sources. The textbook, the TV coverage by Amanda Keller on oz TV and the International Herald Tribune represent major and reputable media coverage. I also found more out there but those alone were more than enough for me. They would be unlikely to cover this company if it were not notable and their coverage clearly meets our test here. How much other PR noise a company has around it is interesting but not determinative for me. When I dug deeper I found media coverage online of this company in different languages such as russian, spanish, italian, chinese, polish, czech etc, but I can't know how substantial that coverage is. But in any case, for me there is enough notability here for WP inclusion. If the article has been shown to meet the necessary WP notability requirements - and quite irrespective of how much or little WP experience some writing here might have - then it should be kept. In my opinion, there is adequate proof above in the debate and in the article's content itself that convinces me we see more than adequate WP notability here. Even the nominator seemed to concede this to some extent at one stage above, a point picked up by WjBscribe. Finally, let me be the first to inform those reading this that this may well be the first edit from this specific IP address - my ISP allocates a different one each time I log in - but is far from my first WP edit. I prefer anonymity - which is my right as while I really like very much what WP represents to the world as an information resource, and contribute quite often, I'm afraid too many times in the past I have not enjoyed the directed repercussions of some people's 'boldness' on WP, so I now choose the freedom offered by WP to be an anonymous contributor. May not sit comfortably for some, but it definitely works for me. Happy editing to all. 125.63.132.124 11:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC) — 125.63.132.124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I hate to point out the obvious, but coverage by Amanda Keller on breakfast/tabloid TV makes one notable on Wikipedia? Hmm... I can see an opening for fitness equipment manufacturers already. Zivko85 13:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note see long comment below - the TV coverage of the article subject is significant and a serious coverage on television, not a flippant coverage as the above comment implies JeffStryker 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly unnotable, unverifiable outside primary sources or sources arising from self-published material. I am somewhat concerned about the length of comments on this debate - while I am happy to assume good faith, it makes the job of the closing admin much harder, and really doesn't add nothing to the debate. Those from a marketing background should recall from their training the value of conciseness in communication! Speaking as an Honours student in Psychology based in Western Australia with a fair body of Commerce and Marketing subjects in my degree, and with some involvement in the gay community in Western Australia, I am of the opinion that most companies dealing with the gay market are not notable enough to have articles. How on earth can a gay marketing company be notable? They publish surveys. Unlike Nielsen, Gallup etc they do not get coverage of themselves or even scrutiny. Their results are published by means of their sending press releases to media outlets who generally will gratefully publish anything well-written that they're sent - as a volunteer representative of a community organisation, I once got a press release about an issue I was interested in, which included an interview with a relatively-unknown academic and some of his comments, effectively republished as a page 7 article in a Statewide newspaper. At present we have the ridiculous situation that the Perth Pride Parade does not have an article, nor does PrideWA. Rodney Croome's article is a stub despite his absolutely iconic status in gay rights in Australia - I personally hope that his article is one day a featured article on the main page of Wikipedia. If some of the editors above were willing to spend as much time on these critical needs within the Australian wikiproject on culture and sexuality as they did on writing 500-word essays here, we'd be in business. Zivko85 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note see long comment belowabout other topics not the question for decision here. JeffStryker 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep – Cleaned-up and referenced article as it exists easily clears the bar set by Notability (organizations and companies). &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment re IHT/Dagblad article (in support of my delete vote) - I would strongly suggest people read the image of it that's been posted. It clearly states: "The Australian business currently has a staff of six, and Johnson has hired one person to assist him in Amsterdam. So far, Johnson has five clients in Europe, two of whom in the Netherlands, all of which he declined to name." Even Brand Agency's Perth office has 15 employees! In Australia, according to the Federal Government, 100 is the threshold for a small business source - we're talking *six* here. And Brand Agency publishes its client list, Out Now cannot even claim notability on the basis of clients as it refuses to disclose them. I mean, come on. (Quite aside from the clear grammatical mistake in the above quote which should not have made it past any newspaper's sub-editor worth his/her salt...) Zivko85 13:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note see long comment below re typographical mistake being irrelevant and client list is published and includes major multinational clients and organization size irrelevant here as per WP:CORP policies JeffStryker 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for taking the time to read through that article Zivko85, I missed the link when posted and have only just had a chance to look at it now. I have to agree with your assessment of the Dagblad/IHT article being used by some commenters to support the notability of the organisation. Firstly, they refuse to name the clients, so no link to potential notability there by association. Secondly, seven employees in two offices does not a notable business let alone a small business make, particually when drawing industry comparisons to other Australian companies operating in the same space (few of which have an article, despite many having a better potential of meeting notability than Out Now). This company on the level of notability doesn't even come close to reputable name brand marketing firms on the level of Saatchi & Saatchi, BBDO, Publicis, TBWA\, and a number of other entries in this category, not withstanding the research firms of Nielsen Media Research, The Gallup Organization, Ipsos-Reid, Synovate, Harris Interactive, and National Quality Research Center (NQRC) who are behind the benchmark measurment on customer satisfaction in the US economy. I think that the inclusion of this article by JudyRobinson and ors. simply has proved the core arguments of the procedural AfD nomination for this article. Thewinchester (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment re WP policies Tried to avoid responding but did because of tagging and repeated delete remarks coming out of just a few editors, from one common geographical area, and most recently all within minutes of the other == would like to try to just apply WP principles - perhaps that may make a closing editor's job simpler. Re Herald Tribune article, like Thewinchester I hope the closing editor reads it. Significant independent profile on the company - not promotion. Orderinchaos remarks on this appear not borne out by either where news report appeared, nor its text. Out Now is both in news headline and most prominent listing on front page. Philip Kotler textbook noticeably not addressed in recent postings of editors pushing delete. TV report of the company is clearly not a promotional piece - is by a  respected UN award winning journalist, & article subject is most prominent element. Zivko85 remarks on that seem flippant and not relevant. Zivko85 and Thewinchester claim number of employees is an issue but that is not WP policy - WP:CORP says "smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." If Thewinchester  takes issue with categories article appears in s/he should edit the categories not delete the article. Orderinchaos, Thewinchester and Zivko85 can see by reading the WP article they are trying to delete that despite their assertions, the article clearly lists Out Now clients as including National Australia Bank, Lufthansa, Citibank, Barclays, and Toyota. Out Now are nominated by advertising industry Commercial Closet Association for an Images In Advertising award in New York June 07 for Lufthansa campaign  alongside agencies cited by Thewinchester of Western Australia - like BBDO, Publicis, TBWA\.  Brand name clients and work examples also published online on Commercial Closet website for eg German National Tourist Office and Merck Sharp and Dohme. Zivko85  remarks about Perth pride or Rodney Croome are about non-related topics - this debate is about this article alone. Zivko85 of Western Australia criticises a newspaper typesetter/proofreader - has no bearing on WP:CORP notability for this company. There seems a committed handful of editors wanting to delete and do so with great and coordinated zeal. I do not change my view that this article is a clear keep for WP based only on WP policies. Orderinchaos of Western Australia - this is not a vote - it is a discussion on this article's topic as being notable for WP according to WP:CORP policies - nothing more, but nothing less and I support views on this debate by WjBscribe, and  Madman bum and angel. JeffStryker 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While I accept your right to reply, as a closing admin for other debates I would advise that comments such as above, in length terms, are somewhat of an abuse of good faith, and a ridiculous imposition on the closing admin whose time is already sparse. There is nothing in the above that couldn't be said in about four lines, and this applies to several of the IP editors and to User:JudyRobinson's comments. (I also, for the record, see nothing that actually rebuts Zivko's arguments in the above - and his two combined responses were 461 words, incidentally.) Most likely this will end up at deletion review, for the reason that no admin should be expected to have to deal with such long-winded responses to an AfD from editors with a combined total of 119 edits to the encyclopaedia, about 10% of which are on this debate. Orderinchaos 20:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Coordinated zeal? Thanks to Microsoft Excel and a query tool I saw on someone's talk page recently, let's have a look...

* (205 excluding WJBscribe and Madman bum and angel)

Also as one of the Western Australian editors I resent the suggestion we are voting as some kind of block. If that was the case you would have about 9 from Western Australia. We're all established editors, we've all been involved in AfDs before. Several established editors from other states and elsewhere in the world have also voted delete. In fact as the table above shows, all but two of the established editors have voted delete (with all respect to those who didn't as people have the right to vote whatever way they choose). There's been 2.5 times as many words spoken to keep the article, two-thirds of which have been by two editors with few significant contributions outside this AfD and one of which is highly involved in editing of the original article. I have absolutely no history with this article and this subject, but I cast an informed vote and got attacked for it. I see the same has now happened to Zivko85. Most of the keep votes don't even *try* to address Wikipedia policy and make vague claims about unverifiable sources. On WP:N, a cornerstone policy, and on WP:V, another cornerstone policy, this article utterly fails. It's just another company that's good at self-promotion. A page in some Dutch textbook and a badly-formatted article in a Dutch newspaper that quotes the company founder almost to a word (ever heard of advertorial?) convince me even further that this article has no place on an encyclopedia. (I do realise the irony in this raising the "delete" word count, but yeah...) DanielT5 21:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I did not wish to offend you DanielT5, and can only apologise if you took offence, I hadn't yet noticed you also are from the same State of Western Australia. I was observing that of the delete editors (as it now turns out) a majority are from such a small population State as yours. I thought your table interesting but also the observation at the top of this page "please note that this is not a majority vote". It is a bit of a moot point to rely on perhaps since the nominator of the article is by far the most frequent contributor to this AfD, and it doesn't advance the key argument we are all meant to be focusing on, namely WP:CORP. I apologise for being amongst the more verbose commentors JeffStryker 22:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Re state - WA has a population of over 2 million. Even by Australian standards we are overrepresented in terms of admins, featured and good articles and active contributors, and our wikiproject is probably the most active under the Australian banner and looks after over 2,500 articles about itself, notwithstanding editors' contributions to other areas. As such it's not entirely unexpected that our editors, who vote in a range of current AfDs (and not infrequently on opposing sides!), would end up commenting on a controversial AfD which is Australian in focus. I would guess most, like myself, saw it come up on Australian deletions - I'm entirely unsure where the IP and other editors discovered it. Re Thewinchester - about 4 of those edits would have been simply those instituting the AfD, and several were edits or corrections to the user's own contributions. Orderinchaos 22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment JeffStryker - your comments above clearly show that you've ignorant to the discussion at hand. OIC has already beat me to a comment on the state. Nearly every discussion bar some necessary deviations and inclusions has been about notability in one form or another, which obviously relates back to WP:CORP. From WP:CORP
 * The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations1 except for the following:
 * Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself — whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.2 Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy.
 * Sorry, but the core citations and the DagBlad piece being used to assert notability for the company fail the above test in WP:CORP, clear cut and dried. Additionally, the Australian projects are some of the most active WP projects around, and users often converse frequently both on and off WP about issues of the day and the goings on. Making a thinly veiled suggestion that editors are acting like a Cabal is not only patently false, but shows a clear lack of understanding how WP works and project members collaborate. I've already had to remind you once on Assume Good Faith and it shows that you need to go back and read it, again. Thewinchester (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been trying my best to see and find Good Faith throughout this process. Some of the language on both sides of this debate - I think - veered off the temperate road, but that again is not the determining issue to resolve. I note the footnote number 2 to the extract you selected states: The published works must be someone else writing about the company... A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. I see no evidence other than unproved assertions that either Amanda Keller, or Philip Kotler or the International Herald Tribune have approached their coverage of Out Now on any basis other than as a notable subject for non-trivial coverage in its own right. When I watch/look at these three alone (even without all the other evidence various 'keep' editors referred to) I remain quite convinced of notability. JeffStryker 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok, how did you miss the key point in the quote from WP:CORP, and this entire deletion debate? You admit that these are published by another company, and as WP:CORP states that (And i'm paraphrasing the policy here) material re-printed by other people based on a press release or other works where the company talks about itself ain't notable. You're trying in seventeen different ways to suggest WP:CORP says something other than what it says in regards to the issues at hand, and each time you single handidly end up proving the article and subject do not meet WP:CORP. You also continue on stating that contributors to this AfD have tried to assert that Amanda Keller, Philip Kotler and International Herald Tribune are not notable, which is a self-beneficial reading of the discussion. The notability by association is contested due to the nature of the comments or articles attributed to them, as these are considered by definition primary sources and not meeting the notability requirments of WP:CORP. This is not withstanding that trying to use Amanda Keller who is at best a B-Grade TV Presenter/Radio Announcer as a notable source is just beyond beleivable, as she has no authority or standing in these kind of debates bar having access to a captive audience day in day out. Thankfully, all the AfD's i've had to pursue thusfar on the Category:Companies of Australia cleanup have just not got to this level, because it has been a bugger of a category to clean up. Getting rid of this article has proved particually cumbersome due to a previous AfD and a bunch of single issue editors who've swooped down to protect an article which has not been shown by any of the contributions to be notable specially when placed in the context of company policy. Frankly I have no idea how so many single-issue editors became aware of this and decided to throw their two cents in, but i'll go out on a limb and suggest that there's either a company flunky who's got this article on watch (Which screams Vanispamcruftisement) and has called a bunch of you into action, or there's been some other way of getting the message out that's not been exposed yet to the community at large. I have not seen one single convincing comment which goes to disproving the lack of notability of the organisation specially when weighed against WP policy, and I strongly suspect that the closing administrator will see it that way as well. Thewinchester (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I really have not enough time left for this process so thankfully a decision will soon be made. So far as Good Faith goes - we can all benefit from trying to adhere to that assumption in our comments. I mentioned above in my first posting why I've watched this article for some time. I don't want to inflame things, so will not respond to the other points you made above - I think we have all 'been there, done that' in this AfD by this stage to understand the others' viewpoints clearly enough - even if we don't share them. JeffStryker 15:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete How is a promotions and marketing company that focuses on the LGBT market any different in WP:N to a promotions and marketing company that focuses on sports fanatics? or single mums? I do not agree that the niche that this company applies itself to makes it at all notable on its own, and, sadly, that seems to be the basis of this article's support. I have read the entire discussion, article, references and do not believe that WP:N exists to anywhere near the high level that a company of this nature (marketing and promotions) would require on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I think it is highly likely that the vast majority of the editors that will be involved in the maintenance of this article will come from within this particular company, (WP:SOAP) or have a direct involvement with this company. Can people in this position write WP:NPOV? Yes. Is it likely that they will? No. Also, I must comment that WP:GOOGLEHITS is recommended to NEVER BE USED as an argument to keep or delete an article, and has been used extensively in this debate. Even though I read through the entire proceeding text, I agree with the nominator and was not convinced that this article was any more than careful WP:VSCA. Aliasd 12:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to me that this is an advert. Hole in the ground test also applies.  Finallly, internal sources are not good.  G1  gg  y  !  11:16, 25 May 2007 (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.