Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Text 100


 * 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. Avi 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Text 100
I put a speedy delete tag on this, but another editor removed it. There are no claims of notability, and the other article it links to has been speedied for lack of claims or proofs of notability. Corvus cornix 02:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless some sources are provided. The other articles have been speedied as adverts, and this one was toned down considerably upon recreation, but it doesn't assert notability very strongly. Leebo 86 02:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The concerns about a lack of sources have been addressed, and the notability has been asserted. I still dislike the conflict of interest involved, which contributes to the advert-like feeling. That's not in itself a deletion criterion though. Leebo 86 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to those favoring keeping this. I've made some further edits and notes to address concerns. --Timdyson 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC) As the creator and the person with the COI I'm happy to address any of the concerns above. SHort of getting Steve Ballmer to post something stating that he appointed the firm back in 1982 along with a former exec Bob O'Rea I'm not sure there is much we can do to verify that we did launch Microsoft. THere are numerous timelines on the web that confirm that Microsoft was launched in Europe then such as http://www.cisnet.com/glennmcc/pc-hist/. There are numerous articles about this firm, most recently in the Financial Times but also in publications such as Business Week which discuss the fact that it is the first PR agency to open a virtual office in Second Life. I would assert that if you remove this firm you should remove all other PR firms. --Timdyson 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Having done some homework on the matter it seems the criteria for corporations are:
 * Delete for lack of sources. I didn't feel this was an advert, but it's almost an A7 speedy, and it might even qualify as such. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article contains sources now, which solve the verifiability problems and might even solve the notability concerns. Now, however, it reads more like an advert than it did before.  Thus, I'm leaning toward keep at the moment, but I'd like to see my concerns addressed. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional Info It seems as though the author (User:Timdyson) has a conflict of interest related to the group of articles that he has created (including Text 100, Next Fifteen Communications, and Bite Communications). This became apparent in this diff. Leebo</b> <sup style="color:#B22222;">86 05:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 10:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I've also prod Next Fifteen Communications. Mathmo Talk 12:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to contest this. I researched the entries for similar firms in this field including Waggener Edstrom and Edelman. The entries I've made are no less well supported.--Timdyson 19:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Subject seems only notable within its own industry.  It's biggest claim to fame is lauching Microsoft in Europe 25 years ago, and its own website is apparently the only source for that.  For a PR firm, you'd expect it to have more mainstream press if it were truly notable in the WP sense.  Also, while I have tried to remove the POV, it still feels like an advert, and there's not much left.  I also have serious COI concerns.  The creator even mislabled the 2005 Holmes award so that it looked like Agency of the Year rather than the more limited Technology Agency of the Year, and I don't know if the good faith assumption holds here due to the COI.  Finally, the existence of articles on similar firms is just INN.  I'll have to look at the other articles mentioned for possible prod/AfD. -- Butseriouslyfolks 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:


 * 1. The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.
 * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations2 except for the following:
 * Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.1
 * o Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.
 * 2. The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3
 * 3. The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market.

This company meets both of the first two criteria listed and I would therefore respectfully argue that it should not be deleted.--Timdyson 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Leebo. It's, quite frankly, a decent page. Timdyson, can you verify with any references that it does in fact meet criteria 1?--CastAStone|(talk) 00:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did update the article to include an article in the Financial Times and another in Business Week that recently talked about its entry in Second Life.  Here is the link to the FT piece:  and here's the one for Business Week --Timdyson 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to point out, both articles are about Second Life and the subject happens to be one of the firms there. The first ref is not much more than a passing mention, and both of them only support the proposition that the company has a presence there.  Trivial at best, IMHO.  -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * keep as a good example This is a PR firm, but within its field it's notable, and that's the test. The article at this point has had  the advertising removed, and is a sober a statement as can be expected.  I think we need it to use as a model to use when telling the commercial spammers what the need to do to make a decent article. DGG 05:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I haven't looked at the earlier versions, but the current version shows notability. JamesMLane t c 10:33, 4 February 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.