Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CMG Worldwide

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Those who favored keeping this draft advanced plausible arguments that this company might be notable. Those who favored deletion more or less simply voted "per nom," which is not unacceptable, but the claims that the company is probably notable have not been satisfactorily addressed (indeed, not addressed at all). Those favoring deletion simply pointed to the fact that the draft in its long-standing, current state is not acceptable, which we can somewhat plausibly expect drafts to be. In light of this, I would say the rough consensus is to keep this draft for now and allow time for its improvement. However, 67.69.131.130 is cautioned that repeatedly re-submitting the draft to AfC without appearing to be making good faith efforts to address the reasons this draft was deleted and then declined is considered tendentious editing and is liable to eventually lead to another deletion discussion, per WP:NMFD. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:CMG Worldwide


Note the comment by User:DGG that this is essentially the same as an article that has been deleted 5 times and has been salted in article space.

The draft doesn't establish corporate notability, and has promotional aspects, and isn't likely to be brought into shape where an administrator will accept it (and only an administrator can accept it). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as rejected from mainspace already. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete., as Isaid on the draft.  DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the first five referenced sources, all are mere mentions of the CEO and company within coverage of another topic. The topic is promotional, and it fails WP:CORP by a long way.  Delete as promotion without suitable sources.  WP:Reference bombing does not help and is a negative.  No number of not good enough sources makes up for a lack of suitable sourcing.  See WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Should the company, or CEO, turn out to be Wikipedia-notable, WP:TNT applies to this source because the content is all derived from unsuitable sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep In prior AFD discussions, User:DGG himself stated that CMG might be notable. I can understand rejecting the draft, but it seems a little odd to try and disallow further work on the draftt at all. Also, I have asked several times why the major in-depth published sources are being ignored, to which it appears that Wikipedia only intends on punishing the entry as deeply and swiftly as possible, rather than even bothering to review the sources. There is nothing promotional about the draft unless you honestly believe that simply mentioning someone's business is promotional, it's a stub for crying out loud. In my view this is a case of "I don't like it" masquerading as a policy debate by high level administrators. Again, it was DGG himself that stated that CMG might be notable. What is the point of disclosing and filing through AFC here. To make it easier for punitive action to occur? 67.69.131.130 (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * comment I will look again.  DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * keep There is a promotional tone here, which should be corrected, but not enough to justify deletion in my view. There is sourcing to major reliable sources. Whether enough to establish notability i'm not sure, and it isn't really relevant here anyway. This draft is a good place to start work on an improved version, with a number of sources already in place. Prior AfDs do not mean that a draft should not exist, and are not a good reason to delete a draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree in part with SmokeyJoe, and have removed four sources that failed one or more of WP:ORGCRIT. Two of the remaining ones, and  could be the core of a draft that meets WP:CORP. I would add a pair of articles from 2007 and 2008 in the Indianapolis Business Journal (available via Gale) and this 2016 article in Boston College Law Review. DES makes the point that the draft (even just the title and a list of sources) could serve as the starting point for an acceptable article. We may not have the time to hold a paid editor's hand through the process, but between now and G13, others who troll through declined drafts may be able to make something of it.
 * Can we put our fingers on what is promotional about the current draft? I see no encyclopedic value in the long list of estates. The two or three that are important in the company's history (such as the Marilyn Monroe litagation) can be mentioned in the history section. The failure to make any claim of importance, significance, or notability also makes it seem promotional. I think what makes them stand out from a run-of-the-mill business is the changes to state law they pushed through to create their business category. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What makes it promotion is the nature of the business, seeking clients even if “not for profit” (what does that really mean?), it being a simple presentation of attributes, devoid of qualitative commentary, matching the lack of independent commentary in it. Is this company useful, interesting, ground breaking, scrupulous or unscrupulous, fun, value adding?  Adjectives, that only a critical commentator can make.  I am still unimpressed with the sources, they do not read as independent coverage. The standard required is clearly written, recently much improved, at WP:CORP.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the elaboration. I'm puzzled by the second part of your first sentence, seeking clients even if “not for profit” (what does that really mean?). Where did that come from? It isn't in the draft or in any of the cited sources. CMG takes a 30% cut; they are very much for-profit, even if they are small (annual revenues of $6.3 million, according to Hoovers). If you want more colorful commentary than The New York Times Magazine, there is some out there. I don't recall the publication or exact language, but one of the hits on Gale or ProQuest that I skimmed and discarded basically characterizes the company as blood sucking leeches. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.