Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simulmedia


 * 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. The "rewrite" does not address the argument for deletion: lack of notability.  Sandstein  09:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Simulmedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article for non notable company. To my amazement and horror, even the WSJ article by Shields is essentially an uncritical press release.  DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rewrite - AfD is not cleanup. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails GNG, sourcing is primarily self-published, WSJ article is a mention in passing DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: per WP:NEXIST. I'm finding plenty of RS with significant coverage, including Reuters, TechCrunch, VetureBeat, and AdWeek. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and I meant to comment sooner; examining this and the links offered above, are finding the same exact information and basis; what the company is about, what its services and activities are and, granted, information only the company would know therefore it would be the sole holder and interviewer. The fact this entire article as it is, states only information about the company that only clients and investors would care to know, states that essentially putting the same elements of this, is not only making it worse, but showing there's no hopes of improvements. Simply having a tossed link count of 23 is not alone sufficient for accepting this, let alone actually improving, because the article was massively need to be removed of its PR and PR-like elements, but there are again no hopes of that. SwisterTwister   talk  17:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the coverage does not meet CORPDEPTH and is rather fluffy, for example, from the Reuters link above:
 * "Oct 31 Advertising company Simulmedia said it can now tie TV commercials to purchases by using data from set-top boxes to help marketers reach specific, more defined audiences."
 * This is nothing more than claims by the company. Insufficient basis to build an encyclopedia article. WP:PROMO also applies, for example, the very first sentence of the article is "marketing speak":
 * "Simulmedia is a marketing technology company aiming to help advertisers drive business outcomes through linear TV".
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2016 (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.