Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isobar (company)
- 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. Sandstein 11:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Isobar (company)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspectedcsp |username}}. |
- Isobar (company) (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)
WP:CORPDEPTH. This is nothing but a list of acquisitions, alliances, and otherwise NN execs, based on press releases. It doesn't even assert that it's anything more than a subsidiary entity. MSJapan (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
]
- Delete per nomination. Article is all promotional. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable corporation lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk)
- Delete - it barely states what it is, just press puffery of expansions etc. MPJ-DK 02:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and I know I've encountered this article before, I frankly consider this G11 material entirely. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:AUD. This is simply a non-notable subsidiary company and I see no reason to keep it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)]
- Merge to Dentsu}} as a more appropriate place. In a business article,a list of merges is very appropriate content and not in the least promotional; it's the basic atuff of business history. Similarly for the succession of CEOs Still, there's no reason for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think that will cause UNDUE. Yes, succession is important, but if all that you have is M&A and CEO succession, what do you actually do for business? More importantly, they're not really a Dentsu sub; they're a member of a network of agencies, and that network is the Dentsu sub. So you're proposing a two-level upmerge to a company that doesn't have the correct sort of relationship that would make it appropriate to feature this agency over any others in the network in the Dentsu article. MSJapan (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Correction, it might be better merged one step to Dentsu Aegis Network (an article which needs some major fixing, btw. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)]
- Keep' I have added two new references to the article. I did a bit of googling research and this company looks to be a multi national company that is well regarded. I am planning to refashion the article more in a prose format to include some better referencing. I will attempt to tone down any advert or promo type info. I think the article should be kept on since the company itself is covered in depth in many newspapers and at many places that are considered reliable sources. Donald1659 (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- That still doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)]
- The article does satisfy WP:GNG since the company has gotten significant coverage in numerous publications that are considered as reliable sources. Also the company has gotten several awards as noted in the article with sources and proper citation. Donald1659 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)]
- It needs to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The awards are all non-notable. The sources consist of a bunch of trade magazines redressing press releases. That doesn't help. You may wish to read CORPDEPTH again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)]
- It needs to satisfy
- The article does satisfy
- That still doesn't satisfy
- Delete & redirect to Dentsu Aegis Network. Not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)]
- Keep -- random user here. Found this article useful. No knowledge of CORPDEPTH to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottgwald (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please ignore this vote. Lack of policy knowledge aside, the user has made eight edits in three years, none substantial. MSJapan (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- comment - I am sorry to interrupt, but why would a discussion/ vote comment be ignored from a member of three years? What is the number of edits you need to have in order for your words and vote to count? As far as corporate depth, I have read it a few times despite the lady above suggesting for me to read it. I also have read and studied the policy of WP:GNG. Now I could be wrong, but it looks like if the article or subject meets GNG, it would not always have to completely fulfill corp depth. I thank you all for your patience with me. I am trying to understand and learn about these policies. Donald1659 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)]
- Because sometimes people count the votes instead of looking at the content even though they are supposed to evaluate the vote content, and someone who has eight edits in three years and admits no understanding of content policy is not voting in good faith. MSJapan (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a moment to explain that Ma'am. Donald1659 (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Because sometimes people count the votes instead of looking at the content even though they are supposed to evaluate the vote content, and someone who has eight edits in three years and admits no understanding of content policy is not voting in good faith. MSJapan (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- comment - I am sorry to interrupt, but why would a discussion/ vote comment be ignored from a member of three years? What is the number of edits you need to have in order for your words and vote to count? As far as corporate depth, I have read it a few times despite the lady above suggesting for me to read it. I also have read and studied the policy of
- Please ignore this vote. Lack of policy knowledge aside, the user has made eight edits in three years, none substantial. MSJapan (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Strong delete per others. WP:ARTSPAM by COI editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a marketing platform. Citobun (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP and the listed awards are not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)]
- Delete and redirect to Dentsu Aegis Network. Unable to find more than trivial one-liners. Even de company's own website lacks in-depth background, e.g. history. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)]
- 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.