Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interbrand (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. Based on policy rationales rather than !votes, the consensus is to delete this article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interbrand

[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)

I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As far as I know, they have just been named Red Dot Agency of the Year last year, one of the most important and independent global awards for brand design. Besides, I think the arguments from 2008 against AFD are still valid. I think the article simply needs some updates and new source, I don't see a decrease of notability since then. -- Microhierax (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That has no applicable weight towards WP:NCORP. Megtetg34 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 1 is from the topic's own website. Source 2 and 7 makes no mention of the topic. Source 4 and 5... I can't find that the articles in fact exist on either publisher's website or in any archives. Source 3 is the company's bio listed on another website. Source 6 and 8 are the same article cited twice that doesn't even mention the topic. Source 10 fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources 12, 13 and 15 are press releases from the topic. Source 9, 16 the link is dead or the page doesn't exist. Topic is clearly cloaked in unnamed sources in an attempt to appear notable enough for inclusion, and I can find no other sources. Topic should be deleted and frankly I'd even back a WP:SPEEDY. Megtetg34 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I checked sources 2, 7, and 6 (8), and all of them do mention the topic. Source 4 is a legit source with multiple academic citations (Google Scholar citations for reference).

I do agree that it's not possible to find sources 5 and 9.

Source 16 might no longer be working, but there are plenty of other sources to back that information (just Google ["Best Global Brands" + Business Week]).

Besides, I did some research and it appears as if the topic has notable influence in various other areas:

E.g.: In the article on Brand valuation Interbrand is named as the "pioneer of brand valuation". The influence on that topic is also backed by the article for John Murphy. I am sure some sources there will also apply to this topic. As mentioned in the article on Wi-Fi Interbrand has been heavily involved in the creation of the name, I think the influence of the term "Wi-Fi" can not be denied; sources back this information (e.g. here and here). There is also evidence for Interbrand's involvement in the creation of Pfizer Viagra (source), the design of the 1995 Suisse Franc notes (source), or more recently the creation of JIO, "the largest mobile network operator in India and the third largest mobile network operator in the world" (source). As stated earlier, I believe that this article can be saved by simply adding the relevant pieces of information. The current version clearly does not do that to a necessary degree, but I still pledge for keep.-- Microhierax (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not seeing the articles mention the topic as you are. Please indicate where exactly in the articles on 2, 7, 6 and 8 and what it says about the topic. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure -

[2] cited re: the founding of Novomark; turned into Interbrand - Paragraph 7: "[...] Mr Murphy stayed in touch and when, after brief post-Dunlop career in financial services, he decided the time had come to launch a business of his own, he secured a deal to set up in the UK under the Novomark name." & Paragraph 12 and 13: [...] " This concept, of creating not just a product identity but a persona with which customers can connect, Mr Murphy decided to call branding, a term he then introduced to the public in the title of a book he was editing, which appeared as “Branding: A Key Marketing Tool”. The concept, he says, ruffled a few feathers among marketeers but the term slowly caught on, Novomark began to style itself as a “branding consultant” and, eventually, it became Interbrand."

[6] you're right, it does mention the overall topic, but does not state Michael Birkin as group chief executive like it is cited as. Therefore, this source should be removed there and only be used as [8], also solving the double sourcing.

[7] cited re: Michael Birkin being CEO of Interbrand Group From 1987 to 1995: paragraph 17 (at the very bottom) - "Natif du Royaume-Uni, Michael Birkin compte plus de 25 ans d'expérience dans le domaine publicitaire. Il a été notamment président et chef de la direction d'Interbrand Group de 1987 à 1995." This translates to: "Michael Birkin is a native of the United Kingdom and has over 25 years of experience in the advertising industry. He was President and CEO of Interbrand Group from 1987 to 1995. (translated with deepl.com)"

[8] cited re: acquisition by Omnicom - paragraph 1: "The Omnicom Group said yesterday that it had acquired Interbrand Group P.L.C., an international corporate identity and brand-consulting company based in London [...]."

I'm sure that it is possible to find more reliable sources to add as citations as I have shown above, and that this is only a question of research and not notability. -- Microhierax (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those are trivial mentions. None of that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well there is more on the topic in these sources of course. Being conscious of length, I only cited the information that is mentioned in the current version of the article. I don't see why these sources should be disqualified as trivial. -- Microhierax (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is Wikipedia running out of storage capacity? I can't see any rational reason for this deletion request. Just my opinion. Have a great Sunday. Klaus Bells (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Interbrand was the pioneer (first-in-the-field) firm in brand-management consulting. Companies prize a good place in Interbrand's Best Global Brands report and enthusiastically communicate such success to their stakeholders, who may then look up Interbrand on Wikipedia. Deleting the article would have a deleterious effect on the articles about Brand valuation, the List of most valuable brands, and John Murphy. --Frans Fowler (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Riteboke (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Megteg that the sourcing doesn't meet SIGCOV or WP:CORPDEPTH. Industry awards don't really convey notability for a general encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:11, 15 April 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.