Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeusM (2nd 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeusM

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

Substantively unchanged recreation of previously deleted page by obvious COI account: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DeusM Pinkbeast (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't speedy G4 it because it has been edited since. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The 2011 version of this article was deleted after an AFD and two trips through DRV (then userfied on request). For reference, this is the version that was originally deleted at userfied. In order to survive this AFD, enough has to have changed to demonstrate that notability and inclusion standards are met. My opinion: no, it has not. A Financial Times article could have been sufficient to change my mind, but the one cited as a source is not even a trivial mention; although it references—briefly—United Business Media's "community websites", it doesn't even name DeusM. The "BTOB Online" sources are all actually published by Advertising Age, which can sometimes be a reliable source. However, they also publish promotional copy, and it is not always obvious what content is truly independent. In this case, I suspect the articles are not truly indpendent; they all have a promotional tone, and all have the same author (despite one misspelling in the citation, all three are by Charlotte Woolard). But even assuming they are independent reporting, they provide little evidence of notability: one described DeusM as "UBM's integrated marketing services unit",[1] while another discusses a platform created by "the company's [UBM Tech's] DeusM group".[2] I just don't see a case for independent notability. I'd support, at best, a redirect to the article for the parent company which already provides a brief mention of DeusM. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 18:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (utter) @ 18:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the efforts to fluff it up, still lacks reliable, non-advertorial sourcing. WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found press releases but nothing that could be considered significant or independent enough to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2015 (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.