Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Farm Group (2)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Farm Group (ne&eacute; The Farm Group (2))

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks to me like a big advertisement. The Banner talk 08:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * MOVED to The Farm Group. -- No unique  names  18:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - It needs an extensive rewrite, but the company looks notable enough to me. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is not a big advertisement. Every fact listed in the article is a direct quote from a number of British based highly recognised journalistic sources. The Farm Group is a well known and popular company which has a huge historical public interest within the British media industry. Also, I don't understand why the reviewer of this article deleted my comments on his talk page addressing this issue without responding to me with any advice whatsoever, this makes me think the reviewer is just unfairly reviewing articles. I have now added links to the page so that is is not an orphan and am currently in the process of fixing the link problems. Agk1987 (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What nonsense are you rambling now? The text is still there, but because you failed to put a header on it, I did that. Perhaps it is to difficult to understand a header "Farm Group"? Ow, and please tell the people you are the author. Next point: is User:Agk1987 identical to User:Aganlykesington. And are you both somehow (professionally?) involved in The Farm Group? The text on the talkpage of the artcle (yes, I removed it from the article itself) suggests that. The Banner talk 18:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. This is my first go at writing an article so obviously there are some things that i'm going to be unsure of doing. And the reason I have two profiles is because the other one took forever took too long to be looked at and I am doing this as part of a university project. I have tried to delete the other account but am not sure how to. As for the text on the talkpage, I was actually told to do that by a reviewer in the live chat/help area of Wikipedia, he wrote it and told me to copy and paste it into the top of the article to help people such as yourself with reference checking. Agk1987 (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus ten marks for not hiding who you are. But minus several thousand for the disingenuous "no idea what you are talking about" and "part of a university project".  You've disclosed your conflict of interest as a paid advocate.  Don't think that the rest of the world is stupid, and cannot see with our own eyes that .  People can put two and two together to make four, and thinking that they cannot has been the downfall of more than one paid advocate in history. For your information, The Banner: Ashley Ganly-Kesington (according to xyr several CVs on the WWW) is a PR officer and publicist at The Farm Group. Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the Linkedin-page popping up on this name is extemely revealing. The Banner talk 17:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Aganlykesington The Banner talk 18:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thinking about this, why is it located at "The Farm Group (2)" and not "The Farm Group"? If we keep the article, a move is in order, I would say. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did try to do list as the correct The Farm Group but was unsure of how to. Thanks for changing. Agk1987 (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved - I moved this page from The Farm Group (2) to the more logical The Farm Group. -- No  unique  names  18:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - just went through and removed the completely and utterly pointless links that littered the article, and categorized it. Still needs an extensive rewrite though! Lukeno94 (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete While the company may be notable, CSD allows an article to be deleted if it would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. I think it's best to delete this and start over. Ryan Vesey 22:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Vesey - unsalvageably corrupt. I also don't think that, under the circumstances, the author ought to be a part of this conversation, which is a part of Wikipedia governance. His vote should be discounted. Herostratus (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a mess. Time to use some TNT--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I declined this article recently at AfC, because though the aurthor had done a lot of diligent work to provide plenty of reliable journalistic news sources, there were no general news coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. While The Farm Group seems to be well known in its own limited sphere, that wouldn't make it notable enough for Wikipedia. However, one decent general news source might change my mind. Granted, the article needs a lot of cleanup and wasn't really ready for mainspace! The author can restore the draft at AfC and work on it, if they wish. Attacking the author seems to be extremely bitey, even if they do have a COI!! Sionk (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2012 (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.