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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AbelsonTaylor[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article on a probably non notable advertising agency. The promotionalism consists of multiple quotes from the company's staff, excessively detailed listing of executives, a list of minor awards for specific advertisements, a celebration of the importance of one particular rather unimpressive ad. The references consist of the expected promotional press releases and announcements. This is essentially the same as what the company would write as an advertisement for itself. It tells what the company wants the readers to know-- and that is the definition of promotionalism . It would do well for their own web site--and thats a good indication of what should not be in WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTPROMO. I don't see any sources passing WP:CORPDEPTH either Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with DGG that the article is promotional, I started to neutralize it, but most of the content is referenced by either their corporate page or sources with questionable independence or reliability. Bloomberg's profile is a valid source, but not enough. My problem with the only claim of notability is that it's sourced by an article written by Illinois Business Daily, they have written a couple more articles on the firm including a non-notable award [1]. The tone of the article that supports the claim that the firm is the "world's largest independent full-service advertising agency that focuses exclusively on health & wellness" suggests that it might be a press release There are very few reliable sources that mention the subject but there is no in depth coverage. I could also find an article about an award written in the Chicago Tribune but again the award is not notable and no in depth coverage. In my opinion it fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG so there is no point in trying to rewrite the article to remove the promotional material. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly sourced, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. JimRenge (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From WP:CORP, per WP:ORGIN, "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." The article currently has 19 sources ranging from Bloomberg, PharmaVOICE, Illinois Business Daily, and MM&M - Medical Marketing and Media. These outlets are unrelated to AbelsonTaylor. Secondly, the opening paragraph states clearly why it's notable: "largest independent health and wellness advertising agency in the world." Michael Powerhouse (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC) - NEW COMMENT 9/20: I found an in-depth article about the company: http://www.medadnews-digital.com/medadnews/april_2018/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1379162#articleId1379162 I will be using it in the article today w/ new edits. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Michael Powerhouse (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
See WP:CORPDEPTH: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization...Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant." Lots of sources are cited but they don't have any real depth. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that the new alleged "in-depth article" is an interview with the CEO allowed where he is to unashamedly promote his ad agency. Totally fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter spam crap with gems like AbelsonTaylor's colleagues have voted them the Most Creative Agency 11 times and the Most Admired 6 times, fails WP:SPIP. References are the usual promotional churnalistic pieces, totally fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.