Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulpo 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pulpo Media[edit]

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

non notable media firm with only promotional references. Content consists essentially of a directory of their executives. Prod previously removed. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 6 August 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) 02:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but I bundled the article for the company's founder (created by the same user). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references here relate to the firm getting a contract from a presidential contender's campaign and some associated media coverage (at a time when the media would pick over every small campaign nuance): essentially WP:ONEEVENT whose notability derived from the campaign rather than the firm (WP:NOTINHERITED). AllyD (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Pulpo Media / Delete for Justin Kuykendall: I am against bundling the two discussions in one. For me, Justin Kuykendall has much lesser chance in notability. But the firm itself, Pulpo Media has some definit notablity merit. I have gone over many of the references given in both articles, and Pulpo Media seems to be considered an expert in Latin media related items at least in the booming Spanish media market in the United States (and not just some advisor to a US presidential candidate, which is just a small aspect of what they do). The company itself is often quoted by mainstream media for discussion of advertising in Latin media as a niche expert company. But in all fairness, what is required is an independent discussion of Pulpo Media as separate from its founder and CEO Justin Kuykendall so as not to mix "apples and oranges". I suggest each is listed separately for discussion and concensus reached on each article independently. As both are bundled here for discussion, I am for keeping Pulpo Media article, but deleting Justin Kuykendall article, which can always be a well-written short paragraph within the company article when discussing its establishment and operational history to date. werldwayd (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pulpo Media; close Justin Kuykendall nomination and renominate it separately for procedural reasons. (Although I will probably !vote "delete" when it is listed, I don't think you can add a bundled second nomination a week after the original nomination.) As for Pulpo Media, I found little or nothing at Google News Archive [1], and the references listed in the article are either not significant or not from Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated them separately. I almost never make joint nominations. I'm not clear who combined them, but I do not think it was a good idea. (especially as nobody bothered to notify me--if they had, I would have probably reverted it) Though the notability of an executive and his company are somewhat connected, they're not identical--in particular, the person is likely to have done other things, which may add to the notability, and additionally the standards for BLPs have some special factors. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 19 August 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.