Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Media Image


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The Media Image

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article itself is quite puffy; none of the cited sources gives sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH (they're all either rehashed press releases, brief company profiles, or mentions on lists). I searched for better sources, but couldn't find anything with deeper coverage. Girth Summit  (blether) 17:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject does not pass WP:CORP. Clearly promotional article. Needs to be deleted. Skirts89 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Author Comment. I work for TMI and it might be said that means in some way I have been compensated for my contributions; however, this has been a labour of love carried out in my own lunchtimes, simply because I think this is a great small company that punches above its weight. As has been pointed to before, I've been a contributor to Wikipedia for a long time, but it's not been a consistent relationship. With my limited knowledge of what makes an acceptable article, I spent many hours looking at the Wiki pages of similar agencies and what I created and maintained was largely based on their structure. From the criticisms here, I wonder how any small commercial enterprise manages to maintain a Wikipedia presence. I am willing to learn from much more experienced hands what makes the difference. Is there any acceptable format for a company Wikipedia entry that won't rub someone up the wrong way? And without trying to rile anyone, I have made some (unchallenged) edits to entries for other companies I've worked for, most of them much bigger than TMI, and I get the hint that the current interpretation of the policy seems to discriminate against smaller enterprises. Maxormark (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maxormark It's not about rubbing people up the wrong way, it's about meeting the criteria for notability - in this case, WP:NCORP, with sources that satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. There are probably lots of other articles out there with similar problems, but we aim to assess articles on their own merits, not in comparison with other (potentially problematic) articles. In an ideal world, no enterprise of any size would 'maintain' their own Wikipedia presence - it should really be done by independent editors, using reliable, independent sources. There isn't an outright ban on people making contributions when they have a conflict of interest, but there are certain expectations outlined at WP:COI - you should probably review them, as I don't see any declarations from you anywhere other than here about your connection to the subject of the article . Girth Summit  (blether)  00:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, I see that you acknowledged this in a response to a paid editing template on your talk page. Guidance on how disclosure should be made can be found at COI - the specific section is DISCLOSE. Girth Summit  (blether)  00:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Author Comment. Taking all of the opinions here into consideration, I am currently working to "de-advertise" the page, and make it simply a statement of fact, as well as adding more complete citations which I hope will prove a public interest. Seriously, not sarcastically, this has been an education. I have also added COI statements to my talk page. Maxormark (talk) 11:53, 13 February 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.