Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jellyfish (digital marketing agency)

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jellyfish (digital marketing agency)

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

This page is so highly promotional that it would require a fundamental rewrite. All but one source is either the company's own publications or does not offer significant coverage. The one source that is seemingly okay is a press release by a bank which does business with this company. I'm not claiming that this company doesn't meet WP:Notability (organizations and companies), only that if it is, it would be best to scrap this article entirely and start over from scratch. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly promotional. I'd probably speedy this as G11, to be honest. There are no substantive, third party sources whatsoever. Steven Walling • talk 03:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been edited to remove brand references. comment added by Thesestairs (talk • contribs) 09:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC) "* Comment" added by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the first step of a long march. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I find it hard to belive that a marketing company, even with 120 staff is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article includes several reliable, independent references from The Drum magazine, Visibility magazine and Business Week. Thesestairs (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The drum reference - questionable independence, does not provide anything close to significant coverage. Visibility magazine reference coverage provides even less coverage. Bloomberge reference has about the same level of detail as The Drum. Total: Nowhere near the level of significant coverage needed to demonstrate that this company meets WP:Notability. Remember that Wikipedia's notability criteria are for the concept of notability what a lagging economic indicator is for the economy - you have to be noted (i.e. with "significant coverage") by other, reliable independent publications first. Then and only then can an article be created. Remember also that by far most companies and organizations do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:15, 15 October 2013 (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.