Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leading U.S. Advertisers in 2011

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leading U.S. Advertisers in 2011

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

Outdated and more or less a straight copy/paste of the source list. Conifer (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Outdated is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. It's a reason for creating articles on 2012, '13, '14 and '15. It also isn't a straight copy-paste.
p 04:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Depends on one source for the article. It's a clear
chatter) 05:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- It's only a copyvio if their list used some kind of subjective or creative inclusion criteria. If all they were doing is, for example, reporting and comparing the numbers the companies themselves released in their 10-Ks, then this information is not copyrightable even if they were the first (or only ones) to do the work in assembling it. postdlf (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply not convincing enough for this of a separate notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per points above. GauchoDude (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2016 (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.