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. Mr.Z-man 21:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtful Media Group (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) not much depth in secondary sources - there's several PR and primary sources. May just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. (created by COI / paid editor WP:COIN#Bert_Martinez_(2) ) Widefox; talk 02:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's sources, yes, but upon closer inspection do they fall short of WP:CORP? Some fail WP:CORPDEPTH e.g. Advertising Age: employee moving (and as an Advertising Age employee that's a primary source), Unilever PR: mentions of partnerships) . (nom clarified per feedback, see comment below) Widefox; talk 11:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't think the nominator has made a sufficient argument for deleting this article. Among the sources used in the article are:

• a feature on the subject in Bloomberg BusinessWeek;
• a business article on the subject in Xconomy;
• an article on the subject in Advertising Age;
• an article in The Guardian;
• an article on the subject at Yahoo Finance;
• an article in PR Week; and
• an article in Marketing Week. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian source has no mention of TMG so doesn't count for notability (no depth at all). (That sentence also borders on WP:SYN and should be split into 2 sentences or the source removed as I've already done for clarity.)

Comment The nom has already covered the weaknesses in the sourcing, see Talk:Thoughtful Media Group#Review;_AfD_needed,_not PROD :

• "Primary sources: 3. Advertising Age, 6. & 7. Thoughtful Media Group. 4. may or may not be an RS blog. There's currently no depth." per WP:CORPDEPTH
  • e.g. 3. Advertising Age - it is written about an Advertising Age employee, primary, non-independent and doesn't count per CORPDEPTH ("routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel")
  • 6 & 7 (are the same url, now combined) primary, 7. fails verification

(nom clarified per feedback) Widefox; talk 11:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The remarks by Ssilvers are a bit misleading. The Bloomberg "feature" looks like user-generated content. The "article" in Xconomy looks like a brief press release. The Guardian article does not even mention the subject of the article. The Yahoo "article" is an obvious press release. The PR Week article only briefly mentions the subject. Etc. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This boutique ad agency may be notable some day, but it's not there yet. Press references are tiny mentions or PR-generated. WP:NOTYET applies. John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Contrary to claims above: There is no "feature" in Bloomberg, just a listing; Xconomy is a routine announcement, not independent coverage; Advertising Age is a routine announcement, AdAge talking about one of their own, not independent; the article in The Guardian makes no mention of Thoughtful Media Group; the "article on the subject at Yahoo Finance" is a press release; PR Week is a trivial mention. This is an advert created by a shill. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:CORP. Incidental coverage does not make it, see WP:CORPDEPTH. --Bejnar (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2014 (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.