Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VELOCITY Broadcasting

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.

VELOCITY Broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Ad-like article, written by

• Support as nom. See the article talk page, where we've been talking about what to name it, which would have been easy if there had been any secondary sources. There's one press release for their new name, and nothing else about them recently, and nothing but their own releases before, too, so they don't pass
  WP:COI situation, per the statement in the article that ""Velocity World Media was founded as Velocity Broadcasting in December 2005 by Philip Elias, co-founder and president of Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc." According to this Elias/Savion press release, they created the "VELOCITY Broadcasting Brochure: A high-impact corporate identity brochure with a unique oblong shape and a sophisticated design, this brochure features high-quality, glossy pages that provide an overview of VELOCITY Broadcasting and its capabilities." Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: It would be good to keep the talk page (and its history), as there are other interesting issues raised, and otherwise we risk reinventing the wheel when these come up again. Andrewa (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to do that? And why? I don't see what's interesting about that naming discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are several options, for example I'm happy to

userfy the talk page and its history. The discussion is presumably important to those who took the trouble to participate, of whom I am one (which is one reason it might be appropriate to move it to my own user talk space). If you're disinterested in the points made, that's fine too. Andrewa (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be advertising added by a COI organization. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Advertisement for a provider of in-house closed circuit entertainment for a couple of chain restaurants, apparently. It's hard to make that sound grandiose and important, but they get an F for Effort: From the WQED Multimedia studios in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and its corporate offices in New York City and Pittsburgh, Velocity World Media produces interactive private TV programming in HD-high definition formats and utilizes a fully encrypted signal to deliver the programming live via EchoStar Satellite to invitation-only audiences. Those audiences gather at the Velocity HD Digital Suites, which are located in private dining rooms in Morton’s The Steakhouse and Maggiano’s Little Italy restaurants in 200 markets throughout the world. Ridiculous. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 31 October 2011 (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.