Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grandiose Digital Media

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grandiose Digital Media

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

One of those dreadful articles which have at first glance numerous decent sources, but which turn out to be all paid for or user-generated ones. Nothing about the actual company (like, I don't know, some customers, campaigns, ...), only hollow words.

An example of the typical methods by which these sources are created and these articles produced: the 6th source is an "interview" with CIOLookIndia from January 2021[1] which strangely uses the exact same wording as the first source, an "article" in the Mirror Review from December 2020[2], e.g. the whole "Being in the persuasion business" paragraph, followed by the exact same complete "Consequently, as the clients" paragraph. Fram (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete paid for spam sourced only to blackhat SEO. No coverage to be found. BEACHIDICAE🌊 14:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly delete. Spoon feeding people advertising. Kadermonkey (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Also, even if the sources were not created by the company, the fact is that these are not reliable sources... you are an international company and you think you are notable? Ok, I want to see an article about your company in some non-indian source that is decently well known. Kadermonkey (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Generic. Entirely generic. scope_creep^Talk 16:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources for a company like this are obviously always going to be in question. Do we have any interest in supporting PR efforts like this? I don't think so. Draft:Grandiose Digital Media may also need deletion alongside.--- Possibly (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR crap sourced to PR crap. - DoubleCross (‡) 17:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete black hat SEO spam should be removed from the encyclopedia. I was going to tag this g11 but I think it will come out as snow close anyhow. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For example, the source #4 basically autogenerates ranking reports based on CB statistics. It's a simple way to generate leads. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt - source 5 is labeled a straight up press release. I'm not sure that the site, "Eastern Herald" is any kind of genuine media too, the fancy Gothic font "masthead" notwithstanding. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article is now at Draft:Grandiose Digital Media...but that said...Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is spam garbage and shouldn't have been moved to draftspace...it can't be saved. @Billinghurst:, why was this moved during a deletion discussion that was clearly a snow delete?! Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam from a less than run-of-the-mill agency. MarioGom (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Restored to article space and close annulled.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are spam and totally irrelevant. Diamondchandelier (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relisted ... so a clearer consensus may be reached BWAHAHA good one, glad I stopped by again. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Bri:I had seen it back on the daily log without a notice and didn't know any other way to flag it as a relist so 🤷🏽‍♀️. I'm just glad Fram moved the draft back to article space. Nate • (chatter) 04:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please close Could the result be any clearer?--- Possibly (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2021 (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.