Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organic, Inc.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organic, Inc.[edit]

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

It's an advertisement, full of unsourced spammy claims. Many industry firsts... hundreds of awards... and much more Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another deliverer of digital experiences advertising on Wikipedia. Advertising businesses are generally not encyclopedia subjects, and this is not an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Promotional and need rewriting, but certainly notable enough to be worth it. I don't like to say this unless I am myself willing to do the rewrite, so I just did a preliminary hob of it. Some further referencing is needed. and I don't claim to have expressed everything perfectly. But this is the first time I've heard it suggested we should delete an article because the subject won too many awards. Looking at the article, some of them were major. I left those in, and removed some of the over-generalities. Those who commented before, please take another look. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 2 May 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) 15:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as evidenced by the number of reliable sources. This article isn't purely promotional, it states facts without using puffery. The awards and clients section could use some references though. Transcendence (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but a rewrite is definitely necessary. ("delivering digital experiences"? Do me a favour....) Yintan 20:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I rewrote to undo some of the (self) promotion. Hopefully it is less SPAMmy now. Seems notable enough given clients and as a subsidiary of Omnicom.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like notability is established here. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:12, 5 May 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.