Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E3 Media (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. There doesn't appear to be any clear consensus, nor evidence that a consensus is forming on whether or not the sources are sufficiently in-depth to push this organisation past the WP:GNG. The discussion around potential COI is a bit of a red herring here, as the article has been edited quite a bit by longstanding editors and COI is not in itself a reason for deletion if the organisation is notable anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E3 Media

E3 Media (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)

References are written by popular media as Press Release not for significant coverage. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As I said in a previous nomination I have trouble finding anything to demonstrate that the company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or GNG.— Rod ^talk 16:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Has received enough substantial coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. See BBC, Bristol Post, and The Guardian. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- an unremarkable digital marketing agency going about its business. I'm not finding the sources above to be WP:SIGCOV; these are rather trivial mentions and interviews with the founder. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not only is the current information advertising its services and PR awards, something that the own company would want of course, the links above are also this in exact essence of only talking about the services and what the company wants to say; none of that is substance, none of it is significant, it's only PR. Looking again, not only had I myself participated at the 2nd AfD of course, but that was actually a clear delete in that there was only 1 keep vote and it was not even a confident one (which acknowledged the listed sources were still note enough). SwisterTwister talk 19:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Knight, Jenny (2004-03-27). "E3 Media - Focus". The Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.

     The article notes:

     E3 MEDIA is now one of the UK's leading independent digital agencies: an astonishing success for a company launched in the cellar of a student house while the joint managing directors were busy taking their finals at Bristol University.

     That was seven years ago. Last year the agency made the first ten in Design Week's Top 20 UK Digital League Table, with a turnover of Pounds 2.2 million.

     ...

     Mike Bennett, the joint founder with Stuart Avery, said: "We found Bristol was a vibrant, cosmopolitan student city. I don't think we would have been as successful so quickly if we had launched in any other place."

     E3 Media specialises in web, internet, extranet and CD-Rom development. It is also in the forefront of viral campaigning: gathering information via internet games.

  2. Smale, Will (2005-06-23). "From bedsit to bluechips". BBC. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.

     The article notes:

     Few would equate undergraduate student digs with business acumen.

     Yet, in 1997, Bristol students Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery defied everyone's expectations when, while revising for their final exams, they started digital communications company E3 Media from their bedsit.

     Since then, the two men have turned 30 and their company has matured into a diversified business offering everything from website design and CD-Roms, to marketing campaigns and computer-based presentations.

     Marching steadily through the late 1990s bursting of the dotcom bubble, today E3 enjoys a number of bluechip clients.

     These range from mobile phone giant Orange, to clothing firm French Connection, car care products and bike shop Halfords, and the National Express bus company.

  3. Iziren, Adeline (2005-01-08). "What happened next?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.

     The article notes:

     Mike Bennett is now an entrepreneur, with a multi-million pound digital media company he set up with his business partner, Stuart Avery, at university.

     Bristol-based E3 Media provides internet, intranet and multimedia design services to the likes of Orange, National Express and Cadbury. Mike and Stuart credit their 35-plus creative team with helping them land and keep big name clients. They also praise their team with helping them win awards, including a best charity website of the year award.

  4. "Bristol firm e3 helping big firms set out online strategy". Bristol Post. 2014-05-21. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.

     The article notes:

     WHEN the internet was just becoming the next big thing, everyone wanted a website, although many didn't really know why.

     Things have changed. Now being online is a given but more and more people and businesses are asking, what can the internet do for me? What problems can it solve?

     Growing digital agency e3's story parallels - or perhaps leads - that trend. Founded in 1997 by Mike Bennett (who went on to found the See No Evil street art festival) and Stuart Avery, it began life as a web design business.

     Now, as managing director Neil Collard, right, explains, building websites is still part of the business, but not the purpose.

     ...

     They launched the 50 Things To Do Before You're 11 3/4 campaign, using the internet and social media to encourage children to become more active. Other customers include Orange (an early client, having it on the books helped build the firm's reputation), Unicef, Bristol Airport and Clark's Shoes.

  5. Rigby, Chloe (2001-02-15). "Booming Media Firm Taps the Irish Market". Bristol Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.

     The article notes:

     NEW Southville media company E3 Media is growing out of its Bristol base and has opened new offices in Dublin and London to support work coming from across the UK and Ireland.

     The company, which has grown from six to 40 members of staff and seen turnover grow by more than 600 per cent in the last year, specialises in digital communications and recently launched a consulting arm.

     ...

     The site, which is currently receiving three million hits each month, has also just signed a major partnership deal with the Bank of Ireland and a leading Irish insurance company.

  6. Dunn, Sam (2000-03-16). "Western Daily Press: Incubator goes online". Western Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.

     The article notes:

     TWO West graduates are poised to launch the region's first Internet 'incubator' start-up firm.

     Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery, of Bedminster, Bristol-based e3 Media, are looking to help set up websites for fledgling Internet firms by providing start-up funding, business strategy advice and securing investment from venture capital firms.

     By acting as an incubator for seedling companies, they hope online entrepreneurs will flourish across the region instead of turning to the City for support.

     Investors have already slapped a GBP20 million price tag on the firm should it choose to go public but e3 Media plan instead to expand privately.

     The new firm will draw on the technical expertise of three-year-old multimedia and Internet firm New Generation Productions, also set up by Bennett and Avery.

     By bringing on board the entrepreneurial skills of Bristol City football club chairman Scott Davidson and Dougal Temperton, publisher of Venue magazine, e3 Media plans to nurture creative talent from across the region and turn it into potential Internet businesses - hand-in-hand with jobs and growth.

  7. Rigby, Chloe (2000-11-13). "Focus on Growth". Bristol Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.

     The article notes:

     FAST-GROWING new business E3 Media, which operates from Southville, has grown to five times its size in less than a year.

     Now it has unveiled a contract to work on the launch of a state-of-the-art camera which is being produced by Canon.

     The company was founded in 1997 by Mike Bennett and Scott Davidson, who initially worked out of a cellar in Bedminster.

     It has grown rapidly over the past 10 months, expanding from eight workers to 40 and is still recruiting.

  8. Rigby, Chloe (2001-01-15). "Website Gives Lowdown to Would-Be Students". Bristol Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.

     The article notes:

     SOUTHVILLE new media company E3 Media is behind a new website which aims to give young people deciding on a university the lowdown from current students.

     The company, based in the Tobacco Factory, says every UK and Irish university is covered on The Student Guide, set to go online on January 25 and be officially launched in March.

     ...

     Graduates Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery set up E3 Media in 1998 with Scott Davidson, director of Bristol City Football Club and founder of Trade-It and Dougal Templeton of Venue magazine. Now it has 40 staff.

     The company approaches internet strategy in the same way as an advertising or marketing agency would approach their markets and its clients include household names such as Orange, Canon, Motorola, and Oracle. The new student website venture, which has so far seen investment of around GBP100,000 by E3 Media, is fully owned by the company and it now plans to take on board commercial partners.

  9. Tyler, Richard (2010-02-01). "Businesses give their verdict on the banks". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2016-09-28.

     The article notes:

     Digital media designers Stuart Avery and Mike Bennett completed the management buy-out of their profitable business, E3 Media , last year. They had to move banks – from NatWest to HSBC – to do it, but both are happy with the outcome. "This year we kept our heads down and got the numbers to give them some confidence in us," said Mr Bennett. "They took a gamble and it's worked out well. Now we are talking to them about another loan because we want to acquire a business."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow E3 Media to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• E3 Media has received sustained coverage over more than a decade in national sources like the BBC, The Times, and The Guardian.

  The Times in 2004 called E3 Media "one of the UK's leading independent digital agencies: an astonishing success for a company launched in the cellar of a student house while the joint managing directors were busy taking their finals at Bristol University". The subject clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. It also clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which says:

  The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.

  Cunard (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and analysis - Exactly with the comments stated including my own, all of that is PR: "E3 MEDIA is now one of the UK's leading independent digital agencies: an astonishing success for a company launched in the cellar of a student house while the joint managing directors were busy taking their finals at Bristol University" (only something the company would know, and to go to specifics, that's PR and that alone) which is then followed by extra interviewed information and then ends at (you guessed it, interviewed) "E3 Media specialises in web, internet, extranet and CD-Rom development. It is also in the forefront of viral campaigning: gathering information via internet games", all of these words are what the company wants to say about itself. The next source also contains loads of all-interviewed information, see "Bristol-based E3 Media provides internet, intranet and multimedia design services to the likes of Orange, National Express and Cadbury. Mike and Stuart credit their 35-plus creative team with helping them land and keep big name clients. They also praise their team with helping them win awards, including a best charity website of the year award" (all PR and company-supplied). The next source talks about the company's plans for itself, and says "By bringing on board the entrepreneurial skills of Bristol City football club chairman Scott Davidson and Dougal Temperton, publisher of Venue magazine, e3 Media plans to nurture creative talent from across the region and turn it into potential Internet businesses - hand-in-hand with jobs and growth" (all PR and what the company wants to say about itself). Also, "(before was interviewed) They launched the 50 Things To Do Before You're 11 3/4 campaign, using the internet and social media to encourage children to become more active. Other customers include Orange (an early client, having it on the books helped build the firm's reputation), Unicef, Bristol Airport and Clark's Shoes (following are interviewed parts also)". The next one, "FAST-GROWING new business E3 Media, which operates from Southville, has grown to five times its size in less than a year...." (note the ALL-CAPS "fast-growing" which is essentially to invite clients and investors, because no honest journalist would ever put that) which was followed by all interviewed information by the businesspeople themselves, there was no journalism efforts. The next one also contains interviewed information, some of the blatant parts are: "SOUTHVILLE new media company E3 Media is behind a new website which aims to give young people deciding on a university the lowdown from current students....company approaches internet strategy in the same way as an advertising or marketing agency would approach their markets and its clients include household names such as Orange, Canon, Motorola, and Oracle. The new student website venture, which has so far seen investment of around GBP100,000 by E3 Media, is fully owned by the company and it now plans to take on board commercial partners.", all of that was PR and PR alone, the journalist never actually made efforts of self-work, because it was all company-supplied information. The last source is yet another interview with the businessperson, so here's what it all boils to, the sources all had interviewed information and then also what the company plans are, there were no actual journalism efforts at all (certainly not significant, substantial or PR-immune), we need to stop kidding ourselves that having a mere news source name is sufficient to sugarcoat PR, because if we accept any forms of coated PR, that means we are still accepting advertising, which is the last thing we would want to accept, lest we become another PR platform like these news websites.SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly with the comments stated including my own, all of that is PR – your suggestion that the very reputable sources the BBC, The Times, and The Guardian are publishing PR for E3 Media is unconvincing. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's that it is in fact PR, the BBC article goes to extreme specifics to actually not only state what the company's plans are but to list what the businesspeople's plans are also, not honest journalist would ever put that, because it's not a journalist's tasks to put that, the only people who want to talk about their own company....is the company itself. The BristolPost is then another PR piece because it actually only ever consists of interviewed information, the worst part of all is "The business has been growing at 20 per cent a year, with a turnover around £4.2 million, and the aim is to continue that, with aspirations to expand across the UK and eventually overseas" because that's only something that company would know and therefore advertise about itself. There was never any actual journalism there because the company supplied everything about itself (the BP "article" name even begin with a flashy quote about the company, "E3 helps big firms set online strategy", and to complete it, it contains a company gallery; then the article is so thin, it's not helping the contents are interviewed and company-supplied information). Therefore, none of that is, again, substantial, significant or PR-immune. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's that it is in fact PR, the BBC article goes to extreme specifics to actually not only state what the company's plans are but to list what the businesspeople's plans are also, not honest journalist would ever put that, because it's not a journalist's tasks to put that – I disagree. It is proper journalistic practice to discuss the company's and the businesspeople's plans. To say that no "honest journalist would ever put that" is unfairly maligning BBC journalist Will Smale's reputation.

  Cunard (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There would not even be one example to show about the BBC because it's all in fact interviewed information (although, now looking at it yet again, the closest blatant would be "has matured into a diversified business offering everything from website design and CD-Roms, to marketing campaigns and computer-based presentations" which is essentially going to specifics about what its services are, such close information belongs only at their own website, since that's what it serves for), that's what "no journalism efforts" means because the businessmen said everything, therefore it's primary information coming from the subjects themselves, the articles goes as far to then talk about of the businessperson's personal interests, that had no relevance for the company therefore it was not necessary, next to this said "interests", it then goes to talk about what he thinks and his philosophy, again, that's not something relevant to the company, none of it actually is because it's all their own thoughts, not news. The bottom line is here at none of that has been both without PR or actual substance beyond trivial and unconvincing information about either what the company wants or plans. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• which is essentially going to specifics about what its services are, such close information belongs only at their own website, since that's what it serves for – what information belongs in BBC articles is for the journalists and editors of the BBC to decide, not Wikipedia editors. Cunard (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly and this is why churnalism also exists, to illustrate the sheer PR connections between companies and "news". Also, any company can claim whatever they want, but that's never saying it was PR-inmune. Also, it has been established that journalists themselves, like paid PR and media, will attempt to persuade and woo the clients in attempts for a good word and appearance; after all, that's exactly what business us about. SwisterTwister talk 00:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although possibly on a weaker level (I am unable to access some of the sources posted by Cunard above; some of the pages are requiring a login). Any minor promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing this stub-class article. Also, I agree with Cunard's view about the BBC, which is a reputable news organization. For more information about BBC's journalistic objectivity, check out the BBC's Editorial Values and BBC Academy's Journalism Values pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re what information belongs in BBC articles is for the journalists and editors of the BBC to decide, not Wikipedia editors -- this is exactly what we are expected to do as editors. Not just repeat what the news media says, but use the sources to build encyclopedic content. News media are at the lower end of the RS spectrum, and yes, their fact checking is not always up to par. A subject does not necessarily warrant a Wikipedia article because it was covered by news sources. That's the decision that Wiki editors need to make based on the assessment of notability.

With content such as

• In 2014, e3 won 6 awards for its re-design and launch of the Royal Navy website.^[1][2][3][4] In 2015, e3 was ranked 14th in The Drum Elite Digital Census with a staff between 51-99.[1]

...this article falls under WP:NOT, which is a policy, not a guideline. There is no encyclopedic value to this article as it stands and sources presented do not amount to encyclopedia notability. Accepting such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed that content. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for removing. Still, the article as it stands is WP:PROMO; it exists solely to promote the business and offers no meaningful information. The article is literally this:

• E3 Media was known as New Generation Products before rebranding as e3 Media in 2001.^[1] Originally established in 1997 by Mike Bennet and Stuart Avery^[2] as a digital communications agency. In 2004, the company acquired London agency Butterfly Effect.^[3] The founders left the company in 2012 and Neil Collard was appointed Managing Director.^[4] E3 currently works with such clients as Royal Navy,^[5] Arthritis Research UK,^[6] National Trust,^[7] Unicef^{[8][better source needed]} and Bristol Airport^[9]

There are no indications of notability or significance, and the article also attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from the company's clients. Do readers really care which non-notable company is acquired (Butterfly Effect), or that a non-notable person (Neil Collard) was "appointed new MD"? Again, I don't see value in having this article, and in wasting volunteer editors' time trying to maintain its neutrality. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that no matter what supposed improvements are alleged, this would still not actually help because of the exact advertising intents and contents overall, to state the obvious, this has in fact been established at AfD, that no improvements, no matter what they are, are a compromise for keeping and accepting advertising. SwisterTwister talk 01:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol + and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bennett (businessman). The page under discussion appears to be the sole survivor related to a likely walled garden associated with this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The depth of coverage in WP:RS is very slight, and the only sources cited that are truly reliable are the BBC and the Bristol Post. They each only profiled the company and didn't even really discuss what it did in any depth; the articles were more "Oh wow, a successful startup in Cornish!". There's really nothing to say about this company right now; I don't think it's notable. FalconK (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs), the BBC article published in 2005 did "discuss what [the company] did in any depth". It noted that E3 Media was started in 1997 while founders Mike Bennett and Stuart Avery were studying for their final exams. It then notes that the company's clients:

  Marching steadily through the late 1990s bursting of the dotcom bubble, today E3 enjoys a number of bluechip clients.

  These range from mobile phone giant Orange, to clothing firm French Connection, car care products and bike shop Halfords, and the National Express bus company.

  The article also discusses what the company does: It "offer[s] everything from website design and CD-Roms, to marketing campaigns and computer-based presentations".

  The Bristol Post article published in 2014 also discusses what the company did in depth:

  One example is the National Trust. Paintworks-based e3 has helped the firm look at the problem of children sitting at their computers all day and not getting out into the great outdoors.

  They launched the 50 Things To Do Before You're 11 3/4 campaign, using the internet and social media to encourage children to become more active. Other customers include Orange (an early client, having it on the books helped build the firm's reputation), Unicef, Bristol Airport and Clark's Shoes.

  The sources provide "deep coverage" about the company that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage).

  Cunard (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • The BBC listing its customers doesn't really establish a lot of depth or importance, and I'm not sure I could write more than a stub about this company from the sources I can find. The only thing one could really do is list the customers and staff and show that it exists. I'm looking at the second paragraph of WP:ORGSIG here, which calls for consideration of whether the company has had "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" -- I don't think the sources noted show this, nor does anything else I can find. FalconK (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That paragraph also says, "However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." I don't think it is necessary for a company to have a significant impact on society to be notable. Significant coverage should be sufficient.

      However, E3 Media has had a significant impact on society. That E3 Media worked with the National Trust to create the "50 Things To Do Before You're 11 3/4" campaign shows they have had a significant effect on society. The campaign received significant coverage in Design Week (link), which discusses E3 Media's involvement in the campaign:

      Bristol based consultancy e3 has produced the interactive website for the National Trust’s new ‘50 Things To Do Before You’re 11 ¾’ campaign.

      Launching today, the site is aimed at 8-10 year olds. It challenges children to complete 50 activities like catching a butterfly, going abseiling and cooking on a campfire.

      ...

      e3 also researched popular children’s websites like Club Penguin and considered the tastes of their own children to develop a site that it hopes is fun and interactive. Users can change the backgrounds and the characters’ clothes.

      The consultancy has worked with the National Trust for nearly five years and this site is the first of three new projects it is working on.

      The project started in December 2011 when the Trust approached e3 to design the website to accompany a ’50 Things’ scrapbook. The consultancy says that as the project developed the digital side became the focus because children like to play computer games. Now the campaign and scrapbook are based around the online content.

      It also received coverage in the Daily Mirror (link), the Daily Express link), The Guardian (commentary by journalist Ally Fogg), and The Telegraph (link). There are other sources about the campaign here.

      In this article, a National Trust assistant director wrote on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's website:

      Over 90,000 children have logged their adventures on the 50 things to do before you’re 11¾ website and app.

      ...

      Two years ago our Natural Childhood report painted a bleak picture of children become more and more disconnected from nature and the outdoors. The number of kids who regularly go to their local ‘patch of nature’ has halved in a generation. 9 in 10 kids can spot a Dalek when they see one. Yet a third of kids can’t identify a Magpie.

      I think getting 90,000 children to participate in a campaign that encourages them to explore the outdoors shows they have had a significant effect on society.

      Cunard (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot that doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. Quotations from employees as story sources are not acceptable. And that onetime event (about a "first world problem") is not really a significant effect on society. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• E3 Media has had a significant impact on society. That E3 Media worked with the National Trust to create the "50 Things To Do Before You're 11 3/4" campaign shows they have had a significant effect on society -- This is a non sequitur. Okay, E3 Media had a client that it worked for. And that is significant how? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This overlooks the last sentence of my comment: "I think getting 90,000 children to participate in a campaign that encourages them to explore the outdoors shows they have had a significant effect on society." Cunard (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an achievement by the National Trust; E3 media was the vendor. That's an attempt to inherit notability from a much better known client. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Design Week article says "e3 has produced the interactive website for the National Trust’s new ‘50 Things To Do Before You’re 11 ¾’ campaign" and that "in December 2011 ... the Trust approached e3 to design the website". It further notes the significant impact E3 Media's interactive website had on the campaign: "Now the campaign and scrapbook are based around the online content." By designing and producing this website, E3 Media has encouraged 90,000 children to participate in the 50 Things To Do Before You’re 11 ¾ campaign. This is E3 Media's significant impact on society. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If you can paste the entire coverage here, it is not significant coverage whcih can satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. More important, I am amazed that so many of the sources use quotations by company employee as story sources (or are basically interviews) - which doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. There is no way this satisfies WP:NCORP. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's noteworthy that the comments here in protest of the deletion are an order of magnitude more lengthy than the article itself... are we maybe dealing with a WP:COI here? FalconK (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely. The delete comments aren't exactly pithy themselves. If you check out his/her contributions, Cunard (talk · contribs) is a frequent participant at AFD who typically posts comprehensive and thoughtful comments in discussion. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that is possible at all. Cunard has participated multiple times at AfDs and has always brought sources to the discussion. I don't see a COI here at all. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can paste the entire coverage here – I did not paste "the entire coverage" here, which you would know if you read the articles.

  I am amazed that so many of the sources use quotations by company employee as story sources – there is nothing amazing about journalists' interviewing the subject of their article. It is good journalistic practice to interview the article subject. The articles contain some quotes from E3 Media employees but are mostly written in the journalists' own words. The articles also will have been fact-checked. Reputable sources like The Times, BBC, Design Week, and the Bristol Post have strong reputations for accuracy and fact-checking.

  My response to Falcon Kirtaran's WP:COI ad hominem is here.

  Cunard (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:ORGIND Sources used to support a claim of notability...except for the following: other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. What you are calling as a "good journalistic practice" clear doesn't satisfy WP:ORGIND. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: the comment "nothing amazing about journalists' interviewing the subject": "I believe the (...) statement confuses investigative journalism with the practice of redressing press releases and / or taking briefings set up by PR firms." (from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeek). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I was merely curious about whether there was a WP:COI, Cunard. It seems there is no evidence of that; OK. We still have to establish WP:RS that satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. So far, nearly everything mentioned is just an incidental mention of the company (that is, holding it out as an example, or mentioning it in passing), coverage that only addresses raising capital, or coverage in WP:RS that doesn't explain what exactly the company might be notable for. The only pertinent source I can see out of all of these is [2], and that coverage is very minimal. FalconK (talk) 07:45, 7 October 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.