Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moroch

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. The delete arguments (that the coverage identified here and on the article is not the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources required in order to establish notability) are much stronger than the keep arguments that do not refute this. Davewild (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moroch

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP notability requirements. Best online sources are individual client engagements in Adweek, or routine announcements; there is no in-depth coverage of the firm. The 1999 New York Times source currently used [1] is a good example: four sentence long routine announcement of another party's investment in the firm. Brianhe (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wish there were fewer press releases online so that the articles about the company showed up better. However, even with sorting out all the press releases, there are still only brief mentions and routine announcements about the company. Nothing in-depth to show notability. --TTTommy111 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To be transparent, I aided an Moroch affiliate in updating this article, but have no particular interest in the subject. My gut instinct however is given the number of high-profile clients the agency is notable. AgencySpy, a website devoted to subjects such as this, seems to offer more in-depth information about the organization other than just naming the major clients ([2][3]). I also found this Bloomberg Business entry showing some key facts. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the Bloomberg listing would be classified as WP:ROUTINE business directory stuff. — Brianhe (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is another article about Moroch's founders in 2006 for reference to help prove legitimacy: http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2006/11/20/smallb1.html and here is another from this week from Media Post outlining the latest big hire: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/251152/mcdonalds-marketer-heads-to-mcdonalds-agency-mor.html 216.250.142.101 (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IP appears to belong to the organization. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also blocked, apparently (user Mjespo23). Should that comment be struck out? — Brianhe (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mjespo23 got unblocked earlier. However, Mjespo23 and the IP should be counted as one person, at WP:Help desk they said they were the same person. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, based on this and this I think it's the organization's IP. Either way I think comment is fine, we're not counting !votes anyway, and there is no inherent block evasion. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(shrugs) If the guy's making a substantive contribution to the discussion (even if I disagree that the sources he put up qualify), I see no reason to bust his chops on COI. If someone working for the company comes up with qualifying sources, COI's a poor sole reason to pitch them. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case it wasn't clear above, I completely with this. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've checked the links the Keep proponents put out there, and not a single one discusses the company (as opposed to founders or anyone or anything else) in substantial detail: even if they were all reliable sources, they're soundbites. Notability doesn't come from having high-profile clients; it comes from receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Where are they, please? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked the sources too, and no substantial mentions of the company, it's all about the people or the clients. Notability is not inherited from either of these. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm from Dallas and I'm not familiar with company but my searches found nothing significant aside from this and they're listed at Inc. here but the rankings aren't significant. I also found highbeam and thefreelibrary results but either they're not significant or press releases (mostly the second one has these). SwisterTwister talk 16:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to clear the GNG bar. Obviously, PR corporations are as popular with Wikipedians as minor league baseball players who lose city council elections and then document their achievements solely with their momma's website... Carrite (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry to be a pest, but can you show me "clear?" I would be willing to change my vote but it looks like the only real source is from the Biz Journals. The other stuff is PR work and routine mentions of its partnerships.--TTTommy111 (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2015 (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.