Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millward Brown

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Millward Brown[edit]

[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)

The appropriate guideline for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP. While there are a lot of references listed in this article, none meet the criteria for establishing notability as they either fail WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2009-04 ✗ G11

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 02:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These three sources perhaps together perhaps satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, [1] (detailed coverage in local newspaper), [2] (detailed coverage in national newspaper), [3] (three pages of critical commentary about one of their products). I used to work for them many years ago so I'll not vote in this discussion, although this isn't a topic I can get particularly excited about.----Pontificalibus 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 18 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.