- 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. Sandstein 18:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Moxie_Media_scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is obviously meant to sully. The company had no presence on Wikipedia prior to this page being drafted. In the current state of actual scandals and fleecing, it doesn't register. It is listed on the Category:Political_scandals page along with federal and international criminals,sex scandals and murders. I do not feel as if it adds any value to Wikipedia as a whole. Seeger7 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You tried deletion on this article already once, and I don't see anything that's changed. Political scandals can be extremely graphic, or as seen here, benign and clean reading for the whole family; this is well-sourced and outside of three edits since the first was closed, the nominator has become a WP:SPA pushing for deletion of this article. WP:GNG is met in my eyes. Pinging @Doncram: as the only discussor on the first nom to see if they've changed their position. Nate • (chatter) 02:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1: There are more articles on scandals than I am willing to review, to see how big this one is relative to others. There's no list-article of political scandals in which the topic appears; it was categorized in Category:Political scandals which I have just revised to put it into Category:Political scandals in the United States (there isn't a separate subcategory for the state of Washington yet). --doncram 03:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2: It seems that Moxie Media (currently a redlink) is in the news enough to warrant an article; i am not sure though as it is my impression that PR firms' articles are a general problem area. I would imagine the firm doesn't like this Wikipedia article existing, but it is factual AFAICT, and the Wikipedia article doesn't appear in the first few page of Google search results on "Moxie Media". I suspect the firm could have put effort into ensuring that. Some more eyeballs on this from regular Wikipedia editors who are knowledgeable about PR firm issues and paid editing and the like would be helpful, but offhand I don't know who to invite to take a look here. --doncram 03:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It seems sourced well enough. There's this account in Washington State Wire that is not yet used as a source, too. --doncram 03:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - No valid deletion rationale provided. Article needs improvement, not deletion. The sources are out there. Hopefully the nominator will learn to accept the outcome of deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2017 (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.