Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Switch (advertising agency)


 * 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. Salvio giuliano 19:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Switch (advertising agency)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Neither the references in the article nor an internet search suggest that the company is notable.

I saw this article at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. User:Andrewswitch proposed the article for deletion because "As a privately-held company under new leadership, Switch does not feel this page serves a purpose in marketing its new brand since this information is inaccurate and outdated." The article was created in 2011 by an account which only edited that article in that year suggesting a conflict of interest. TSventon (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. The most typical non-notable company under the WP:NCORP criteria. —Alalch E. 20:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Missouri.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm so tempted to !vote "keep" just for the poetic justice of making them eat their own expired spam but that's not really a responsible approach so I won't. So, what have we got here? No incoming links in article space except a disambiguation page. No information about what, if anything, they have been doing for about the last decade. Inadequate sourcing. A brand name so generic that it is pretty much impossible to Google it to see if there are any better sources available. I guess this is a delete with a side of sanctions for any COI editors and a recommendation to keep an eye on it to make sure that the COI editors don't creep back with some newer version which "serves a purpose in marketing its new brand". --DanielRigal (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2023 (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.