Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trailer Park, Inc.


 * 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   keep. NativeForeigner Talk 22:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Trailer Park, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advert with an inadequate amount of salvageable material to be worth keeping. CorporateM (Talk) 22:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - This page will continue to be edited and added to over the course of the next few weeks. It will link to relevant and useful articles for those interested in the entertainment marketing industry. It provides useful information to those looking to work in or with the highlighted company and has been mentioned as a useful resource/learning tool by clients and potential hires.


 * Keep - Additional resources, to be added in the future, will link to common pages/articles about the marketing entertainment industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.202.2 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * [Note that both of the above keep votes were added in one edit by 12.198.202.2 (talk).] squibix  (talk)  13:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I struck the second "keep"; per diff page. Editors are only allowed one !vote in AfD discussions. However, please feel free to comment all you'd like. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Holding my nose to say keep. Out of the morass of desperate PR there does appear to be a few legitimate references (ie, ) and awards . But the article needs vast improvement. squibix  (talk)  13:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 11:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: an integrated marketing and technology firm positioned at the intersection of branding, entertainment and technology services. Trailer Park's clients work across the full media spectrum, which includes studio and indie film releases, broadcast and television networks, channels and programs, home entertainment media (Interactive TV, DVD/Blu-ray releases and video games), digital publishing, sports projects, music and original content for the Web. Trailer Park specializes in crafting campaigns from concept to design, production and implementation of audio/visual, print, mobile, digital and social marketing campaigns for the entertainment and advertising industries.  When the article reads like this, it's too soon to worry about notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The firm is notable. The prose is pretty awful, but easy enough to fix--I just replaced the paragraph Smerdis quotes with "Trailer Park is a marketing firm with digital and print production capabilities that specializes in the media and entertainment industries." The rest needs fixing too, but it's just as easy. Given the clients, I don't think there's much doubt about notability. Nowadays I will rarely fix a highly promotional article unless it's really important, but I don't like taking a particular awful paragraph and quoting it as if that alone was enough to damn the article. I think it will take me all of another 5 minutes to fix the rest. `  DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was wrong. It took 11 minutes.  DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 13 March 2013 (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.