Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promotion Marketing Association, Inc.


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Promotion Marketing Association, Inc.
Original version was blatant advertising from their web site, a copyvio (oh, the irony of a promotional firm promoting themselves on Wikipedia). Current version still doesn't seem to follow WP:CORP. I made the mistake of prodding at the same time as adding a speedy tag for the original copyvio. Morgan Wick 02:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yeah this doesnt seem to me to be a notable company anyway. Popcorn2008 02:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Popcorn2008
 * Delete per nom. I'm not sure what this doesnt fail. But put me on the list for coupons. SynergeticMaggot 02:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep reluctantly. It's been around for 100 years, has a dozen substantial books and some CDs in print.  Article is perfectly factual. Much as I'd love to nuke anything anything even faintly associated with the DMA it doesn't seem right in this instance.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  03:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but let's unlink the president. Direct mail is evil.  These are the people who argue that it's actually a public service.  We shouldn't be surprised that they're going to pump it up with blobs of marketing, but junk mail is practically a relief after all the personal vanity rappers, bands, scenesters, screen names, "memes," "personalities," and pranks.  Geogre 11:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is. It still just reads like an ad. If they're notable enough to warrant an article, a new one should be written, cause there's really nothing here to clean up, even. I'll change my vote if that is done during the time of this AfD. Otherwise, a well-written article later would seem to pass notability, to me. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 11:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep term gets almost 40,000 GHits when quoted, and if they've been around for 100 years... Ruaraidh-dobson 11:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is notable by WP:CORP, and doesn't really read like an ad: it is a factual piece.  A bit of additional information and cleanup wouldn't hurt though.   Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  12:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above statements. Jacks 12:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Needs references otheer than its own website to establish its noteworthyness.Edison 16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is poorly written, but it appears to be notable. Regarding the company, the CMO Council states "Representing the $350 + billion promotion marketing industry, the organization is comprised of thousands of brands, including a majority of Fortune 500 companies". On its profile for organizing Advertising Week 2006, a major event bringing major advertising companies to New York City each September, it say it's "the world's leading non-profit promotion marketing trade association." That's enough notability for me. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 23:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Maybe if there was a lot of info about the company and its products, ok (but then it's blatant advertising unless the products are groundbreaking), otherwise this is just a new way to link to their homepage Venice90291 05:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article does not seem to fundamentally distinguish itself from other similar organizations. --HappyCamper 05:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Trade associations such as this one are oft6en valuable sources of information about the industry that they serve. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. They appear to be notable and important in their industry. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 17:04, 4 August 2006 (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.