Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triton Digital

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 merge to Triton Media Group. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Digital

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

Doesn't appear especially notable, article seems to have no neutral content. James^x12345 18:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article is clearly beyond promotional, although what do you expect from an advertising company? :-) Seriously, doing a little research shows it appears to be a division of Triton Media Group, and the survivor a merger with Ando Media. Those two are marginal as well, but if we merged all three into Triton Media Group it might have a better chance of getting one article in neutral tone. There is nothing in the body of the existing Triton Digital article that is worth saving, although one or two of the sources might work in the parent article. A delete might also be justified, except it would lose the history of the redirect, risking going through all this again when they re-create it. W Nowicki (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per W Nowicki. The three companies together might add up to notability. This company by itself - no. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 25 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.