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. Consensus here favors the view that this organization is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeusM[edit]

DeusM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listing at AFD per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_24#:DeusM . I am neutral at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have won some major awards, wouldn't that be notable? Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 00:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I looked for notability on the awards themselves, and Ghits are primary, PRweb, and the like. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im fairly sure this had been deleted before, and recreated. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem familiar... Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 01:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It had some CSD controversy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_24#:DeusM Gaijin42 (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I pasted in the wrong review at first. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is a misreading of WP:GNG here. While Press Releases are clearly not WP:RS, it can't be the intention or effect of WP:GNG to exclude any article based on press releases (in whole or in part) from WP:RS. The consequences would be incalculable. Journalists regularly use press releases; that's why they exist. Is there any reason to think the sources are not independent of the subject of the article?WebHorizon (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that the bylined articles published in Direct Marketing News and Min are "regurgitated v ersions of the press release"? Which press release? Ref or link, please.
I am now adding further sources, e.g. bylined article in Folio, a national magazine for the publishing industry, obviously based on research and interviews. Assertions that any of these sources are questionable or self-published should be supported. Otherwise, there's a prima facie case for WP NOTABILITY: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". No reason to claim at this stage that the article cannot possible be made encyclopedic. Very concerned that article is being hustled to the exit by editors who dislike the tone or style of the marketing industry.WebHorizon (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
  • The speedy delete was not "reversed as premature". It was reversed because there was consensus that it did not meet the strict requirements for speedy deletion. The closing admin's determination of consensus was to "List at AfD." See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_24#.
  • Q:"Which press release?" A: The bits from non-WP:RS Direct Marketing News and non-WP:RS Min Online appear to be retreads of this press release.
  • "I am now adding further sources..." - It's just one source, added twice, or are there others forthcoming? And, again, Folio Magazine (not to be confused with the literary journal, is not an RS source, it's more of a fluff machine as far as I'm concerned, but I invite anyone to go to their site and judge for themselves. I also notice that it's ultimately owned by the same company that owns the Min folks who provided the other blurb and dubious industry awards. These awards, by the way, appear to be a significant chunk of their business model, if you look here. I am curious if the "article", the blurb, and the awards were all part of a package deal, actually. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for cluttering AfD with this:
(1)Doesn't really matter.
(2)Not true. You haven't compared the texts. The articles discuss topics not mentioned in the press release, such as "social networking amplification", together with multiple quotes from interviews. It would rewrite WP:NEWSORG - drastically in fact - to exclude as WP:RS news articles where the writer may have relied, in part, on a press release.
(3) "I am curious" "as far as I'm concerned" and "appear to be" clearly flags WP:OR, in other words "I don't know but maybe..." We can't rewrite WP:RS here. Reliable sources are required to be "independent of the subject". There is no policy against using multiple sources which happen have the same owner (The Times, New York Post, Fox News). Let's just apply existing policy.WebHorizon (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
I originally nominated the article for CSD as C7, G11. The nominator closed my CSD as not appropriate, and moved to AFD. The reasoning should have been moved over as well, but was not. So the reason is "notability, advert" I guess. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks:
"Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)." Does anyone really think that's applicable here, any more than to other articles about businesses?
"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." On its face, it has. The only objections raised are WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The source conversation should take place on the Talk Page in a consensual attempt to improve the article.WebHorizon (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
Well, I think it hinges on hoe reliable and independent those sources are. I think its fair to say that they are not really objective sources, but niche magazines intended to promote their own industry. Are they writing artiles about how such and such a company sucks/is bad? If not I dont think they meet "objective". Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does hang on notability, and theres nothing that strikes me as being promotional. Keep
With all due respect, I think some editors are "assuming" there are problems rather than actually "finding" problems. Just scan this list of articles at DMN. It doesn't even look like a promotional vehicle. Try Folio: problems of digital market, declining ad growth for consumer mags, magazines closing, "uninspired" social products. So, are they objective? Answered.
At this stage, is it fair that I ask someone to come up with an actual problem with these sources, supported by evidence, rather than "appears to me," "strikes me," "fair to say." I don't think AfD discussions are supposed to be about editors' intuitions.WebHorizon (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
  • One source is from a website called "Min Online". It appears to be advertising industry related. It begins: United Business Media is following the user and marketing trends—straight into social media. A newly formed DeusM company from UBM will help marketers create and leverage specialized online communities for their segments. This does not read like an objective and independent reliable source. The closest thing I found to an 'about' page for the site [1] says stuff like Saluting the Media’s Leaders, Innovators, Brand Builders and magazine brand enthusiasts. MIN apparently stands for Media Industry Newsletter. As to circulation, it's Distributed to 9,000 media professionals by mail and at industry events and Distributed to 20,000 online readers of minonline, Digital Magazine and Digital e-letter series. Not the sort of circulation that makes a case for notability. Not written like a reliable source, either.
  • Another is a routine announcement announcing the opening of this business last year. This one's from a "Direct Marketing News" website; again, limited interest and circulation.
  • The last source is obviously not independent and not objective: /PRNewswire/ UBM TechWeb and DeusM received three prestigious Min's Integrated Marketing Awards yesterday at New York City's Grand Hyatt. It's a press release. "Min Online" is involved again.
I do not believe that these three offered sources establish any notability for this year old advertising business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, WP:NOTE is not resting on the last source, which is clearly a press release (included only to verify awards). As for the main sources,I agree that Min is the weakest, but what's the problem with DMN and Folio? Did you follow my links to pages describing their content. Looks to me exactly what you'd expect from magazines covering media and marketing with proper editorial direction. DMN is of "limited interest" in the same sense that "Sports Illustrated" is of limited interest: but any basis for "limited circulation"? Folio is broader. I still haven't seen any verifiable problems with these independent sources. Again, this is a Talk Page discussion about improving sources.WebHorizon (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
Smerdis, I re-read the criteria at WP:ORGIN to which you linked. It doesn't say "discounts purely trade-related sources" or anything close to it, at all. If I'm wrong, please point me to it. It says "reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." We have some of those. It also warns "arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." An example of an arbitrary standard is "year old advertising business" - relating age to notability is just inventing policy on the run (it's not an advertising business either, suggesting a lack of familiarity with the article we're discussing). We have to get beyond this general WP:IDONTLIKEIT from editors who aren't interested in social business or social marketing.WebHorizon (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
As to notability, the question is simple. Do people outside of nu-media, marketing, and advertising industries pay attention to "Min Online" or "Direct Marketing Online", or for that matter, "Folio", which was not cited in the article when I wrote that? If not, they are media of "limited interest and circulation". Nobody outside the industry reads them, except for Wikipedia editors fingering spammers.

Because notability is not temporary, age does matter. To find a subject notable means that it is notable for all time. If this business is notable, that means that 500 years from now, this business will be considered worthy of mention in the history of advertising. I don't see any evidence for that kind of achievement in what the alleged sources actually say about this business. It's not a head count; it's a question of whether this business has done anything that should get it an encyclopedia article apart from being open and creating campaigns for its clients. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"we are all saying what we think is the case". But that is precisely the problem. Nobody has offered one verifiable reason to doubt that two of the sources given (DMN and Folio) are reliable. What we need to do is apply policy; deletion shouldn't rest on the personal tastes of this tiny sample of editors. Are any of the editors participating in this discussion interested in or knowledgeable about social business, B2B publishing, XaaS or other aspects of digital business? No (I suspect): and you don't need to be if you stick to policy. Nor should we be inventing interpretations of policy ("500 years from now, this business will be considered worthy of mention in the history of advertising"). WP:NOTE = significant coverage in reliable sources, period. And "significant" as everyone should know does not mean "lots of it," it just means the subject of the article should be the main subject of the story cited. I hope whoever closes is this pushes WP:IDONTLIKEIT firmly to one side.WebHorizon (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
Did you look at the articles? Both based on interviews - evidently different interviews, as the content is quite different? Or the general contents of DMN and Folio? How can the conclusion possibly be supported? I agree the article can be improved; that's not the issue here. I am the article's creator, but would withdraw support for it, in all conscience, if anyone could provide a reason to think that these are not RS, and that DeusM does not have significant coverage in the articles cited.WebHorizon (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon.[reply]
Added a third independent source (owned by Crain's) - this one is entirely an interview. Significant coverage in independent sources.WebHorizon (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[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.
Category