Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Candy Media


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other delete !votes present. North America1000 21:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Rock Candy Media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is sourced almost entirely to the Austin Business Journal, part of the Business Journals group. There's also a dead link to something called austinphoenix.com. A basic BEFORE in newspapers.com, Google News, JSTOR, and Google Books fails to find additional sources. I'm not 100% certain this meets the standards of WP:SIGCOV required to meet the WP:GNG. (At the same time, I want to be sensitive that we're sometimes too hard on advertising and PR agencies and hold them to higher standards than other companies, so I'm open to being convinced this does meet the GNG if I'm perceiving this too harshly.) Chetsford (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for starting this discussion, and for acknowledging we are sometimes too hard on certain types of companies. So we're taking updated sourcing into consideration, I should note I've shared some additional links for consideration at Talk:Rock Candy Media. Turns out the company is opening additional offices in California, and was named one of the 50 fastest-growing Austin-based companies, as of 2017. I'm not sure either of these are enough to help demonstrate notability, but wanted to share just in case. Between coverage of RCM, Rock Candy Life, and Annie Liao Jones, I assumed a single entry was appropriate, though I admit I wish there were more coverage in national publications. I found a book and Digiday source to add. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I should also note, there are several helpful paywalled sources in LexisNexis, which I'm trying to list on the talk page and incorporate as possible. Again, I hope editors will consider all available sourcing before making a notability decision. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep (disclaimer, article creator): I acknowledge this article currently has a lot of Austin Business Journal sources. However, I've posted some additional sources on the article's talk page for additional consideration. I found a book source, this in-depth article by Digiday, and others (some ABJ and some not). The company is among Austin's fastest growing companies and has opened an additional office in Los Angeles. I believe this article needs work and expansion, but there is sourcing for editors to consider, and given its current trajectory, likely more on the way. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Another Believer - thanks very much for your very thorough reply; I'm sorry I didn't realize you were singularly involved in creating this before I AfD'ed it or I would have addressed my questions on your Talk page instead of taking it to AfD. I've been drawn away for the next two days but will come back and give it a more detailed read in order to withdraw the AfD nomination as I'm sure the additional sources you've supplied are redemptive. Chetsford (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Withdraw as nom. AGF additional sources discovered by AB address my concerns. Chetsford (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2019 (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.