Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific

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. sufficient consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific

Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific (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)

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Article's sources are nothing but press releases and blogs from the company. Not a single source in the article is a third-party source that provides significant coverage to the article's subject. Aoidh (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not the case. A significant portion of sources are from a varied set of media types (for instance, news reports). Press releases and primary sources are primarily used in the background section (delineating the company's establishment and the reason put forth by its parent corporation to establish it) and in the section on notable Staff. WP:NORG and WP:GNG simply do not support the extreme and pedantic argument you put forth against this article. Majulah1965 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC) — Majulah1965 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Majulah1965 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Hendrick 99 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Which references are you referring to? If there are third-party sources here, please give an example. - Aoidh (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be several sources with a lot of variations in terms of origin, format, and style.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Your misconception appears to arise from the fact that the "staff" section relies almost entirely on primary sources[13][14][15][16][17], which considering the topic of the section, really does not violate NPOV, since it's arguably objectively better to use primary sources to identify the correct positions and names of a company's senior employees.Hendrick 99 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See below, there's no reason to have the same discussion twice. - Aoidh (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is much better-written than many articles on Wikipedia. For instance, the articles on Round Square (educational organisation) and United World Colleges are nothing more than advertisements for said organisations. The Ogilvy CommonHealth article is NPOV and contributes to the coverage of the pharmaceutical and advertisement industries in a region that is often under-represented on Wikipedia.Hendrick 99 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well written is not the issue, notability is. Despite Majulah1965's claim, none of the sources show notability. Not one. WP:NPOV is also not what this AfD is about (although given the fact that the article is propped up solely on press releases, the idea that it conforms to NPOV is questionable). Can you show that the article meets either WP:GNG or WP:NORG? - Aoidh (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going directly off WP:GNG#General notability guideline, 1) The topic is addressed "directly and in detail" and there does not appear to be any original research 2) As shown in my response above about sources, the majority of articles in the substantive portion of the text, especially in the section on 'notable activities' are tertiary or secondary sources, and hence do show a "verifiable evaluation of notability" 3) Same idea as point 2, 4) The majority of the sources are not press releases or published by the organisation in question 5) Sources should be expected to create a "presumed" assumption based on "reliable sources" that the topic is notable, and shouldn't be expected to provide a "guarantee". Hendrick 99 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To address WP:NORG, the article meets all the primary criteria. 1) Depth of coverage - the article is backed by non-trivial secondary sources. 2) Audience- The variety of sources show that the organisation receives media coverage from multiple countries' media.[18][19][20][21]http://www.coloribus.com/adsarchive/prints-outdoor/gastro-stop-bus-19880755/ 3) Independence of sources - again, only a minority of sources in the article are directly or indirectly connected to the organisation, and are only used to detail information about senior staff members. 4) Illegal conduct does not appear relevant in this context.Hendrick 99 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your "point three" is the issue here, all of those sources are connected to the organization; they are not independent sources, with the exception of this, which is not significant coverage, it's just a photo. The article doesn't have any third-party sources that discuss the article's subject in any significant way, and Wikipedia articles require several. As for your comment above about "several sources with a lot of variations in terms of origin, format, and style", that's completely irrelevant. Wikipedia articles do not become notable just because the style of the references are different from one another. Are you able to provide a single third-party source that would satisfy WP:GNG? The long list you copy-pasted from the article doesn't contain a single one, just a whole lot of nothing. - Aoidh (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? Those are specifically the sources that are not connected to the organisation in question. Maybe take the time to look at the sources? It seems like you're being extremely conspiratorial, claiming that all those sources, ranging from Indian newspapers to American business papers, are controlled by the company. I can't find a shred of evidence to support your claim that all (or any) of those sources are controlled, either financially or editorially, by Ogilvy, or any other pharmaceutical or advert agency for that matter. All those sources satisfy WP:GNG. Hendrick 99 (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that all the sources were "controlled by the company," that's a red herring. What I did claim, is that not one of them meet WP:GNG. I did look through each and every source that you haphazardly copy-pasted from the article (which I know because many of them are duplicates). But you want me to type out an explanation as to why none of them meet the requirements for WP:GNG? Fine. I'll bite. Here is every single source you've provided, with an explanation as to why none of them satisfy WP:GNG:

Now, you're claiming that "all of the sources" meet WP:GNG, but that's quite untrue, as even a quick glance would show that many of them are from the company's website itself, which does not meet WP:GNG's "independent of the subject" requirement, therefore not "all of the sources" show notability. In fact, upon looking at them, none of the sources show notability for the subject. More does not mean better; instead of copy-pasting a wall of references and hoping something sticks, look for actual sources that show notability, because for my part I haven't been able to find any, and none of the ones listed here cut it. - Aoidh (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. CommonHealth has been deleted as not notable (and then redirected here); this organisation is likewise not notable. The deleted article stated that parent of this company is Ogilvy CommonHealth Worldwide but that does not have an article. The awards and nominations are not sufficient to confirm notability. – Fayenatic London 00:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as its troubles are noticeably obvious and there's simply nothing else suggesting at least minimally better, delete at best for now and only restart when better, SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - could find no in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources during searches. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:08, 13 April 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.