Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCOLondon
- 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
TCOLondon[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- TCOLondon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL(With a space) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL(Spelled out) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of meeting notability guidelines. The references given are either primary or are not WP:significant coverage. There appears to be only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Google searches do not find anything significant about the company. noq (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (as creator). The company is the parent for both Huck and Little White Lies and there is significant coverage for each of those (in addition to the start of the coverage I've added to the main article - Note I added alternate spellings for the company in the "find sources" template) and all three entities are used as references throughout the project. If there is not enough support to keep, I'd argue for a redirect to either Huck or Little White Lies. - PaulT+/C 14:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Despite the number of references given, there are none that are WP:significant coverage about the company - most of them are single sentence mentions of the organisation in passing. Those that are not seem to be either by the company (either directly or via press releases) or interviews with people that are or have been employed by it and discussing the people not the company. Some do not even mention the company at all. noq (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- In addition to my comments below, since the initial AfD I added a number of notable awards/nominations the company has received, namely Art Directors Club Merit winner in illustration (2013), Amnesty International Media Awards Special Commendation (2012), D&AD Awards Yellow Pencil nomination Illustration/Magazine & Newspaper design (2010), and Magazine Design and Journalism Awards Nominated Best Designed Magazine (2008) - PaulT+/C 04:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Despite the number of references given, there are none that are WP:significant coverage about the company - most of them are single sentence mentions of the organisation in passing. Those that are not seem to be either by the company (either directly or via press releases) or interviews with people that are or have been employed by it and discussing the people not the company. Some do not even mention the company at all. noq (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. The article is an extension of the company's promotional efforts. The WP:REFBOMB approach, citing passing mentions and even sources that do not mention the company at all, just illustrates how little actual coverage there is of this company. For those who prefer guidelines to policy, the company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Bakazaka (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:CORPDEPTH explicitly mentions "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product" as "[an example] of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement". Per that point, there was coverage of the book (product) TCOLondon created for Microsoft (and Nokia) by The Verge, CNET, and Telecom Tech News. These are not PR pieces (or at least I don't think they were). There was also coverage of the product they created for Google at Mashable (via CNN) and The Guardian; Facebook at TimeOut and MixMag.net; and Nike, Inc. at Fast Company and The-CMA.com. There are other examples in the article, but to say that this is entirely promotional is not a fair assessment of the page. I have no affiliation with the company what-so-ever. - PaulT+/C 04:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also, the above is all in addition to the coverage (and awards) that their products Huck and Little White Lies both have. - PaulT+/C 04:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Ongoing" is not met with any of the coverage you've cited, so it's still a failure of WP:CORPDEPTH. Additionally, the CNET "coverage" is mostly a reprint of The Verge article, which itself is admittedly based almost entirely on information provided by the company. The Telecom Tech News piece has a passing mention of the company and two sentences on the book. The others are brief mentions of products that the company has produced. The Time Out source and Fast Company sources don't even mention the subject of this article, and the The CMA source only mentions the company in passing as the parent of Huck in its two short paragraphs. The company verifiably exists, and it has done work, but it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Given that the coverage is almost entirely routine and/or based on company-provided information, it is WP:PROMO because it is an extension of the company's PR efforts. Whether or not you intended it that way, it's still a regurgitation of the company's story about itself. Bakazaka (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Their work is mentioned plenty often enough to count as "ongoing". Each project mentioned does get coverage (and there are more examples in the article). The Time Out (documentary for Facebook) and Fast Company(Nike's ad campaign) sources directly cover their work even if the company itself isn't explicitly mentioned. - PaulT+/C 05:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- The reason that WP:CORPDEPTH requires ongoing coverage of a product is because companies often place PR stories at product release time, so ongoing coverage of a product demonstrates continued interest beyond the initial PR burst. These sources show individual PR bursts for a few specific products. So, again, fails WP:NCORP. As for claiming that sources that don't even mention the company are significant coverage, well, I sincerely hope that you do not accept that for other articles. Bakazaka (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding that last point, clearly I'm missing something. Company "L" makes product "D" for client "F". "L"'s product "D" has coverage mentioning "D" and the client "F", but company "L" is not explicitly mentioned because that would be counterproductive to company "L"'s aims for their product -- they are creating the product for "F" after all, not to promote themselves. In that case you are saying coverage about product "D" doesn't count toward "L"'s notability and that this coverage doesn't count even though there would be no coverage of anything if it weren't for "L" creating "D" in the first place, is that accurate? (Nevermind the additional fact that there is other coverage mentioning "L", "D", and "F" together in other places.) I don't see how coverage of "L"'s product "D" doesn't count toward "L"'s notability since it is clearly indepentently stated that "D" is "L"'s work.Let me step back and confirm some points of agreement/disagreement between us: The disputed point on notability is primarily about the lack of "significant" coverage (in your view), correct? Do you agree that there is widespread (even if it is not significant in your view) "coverage" from "reliable" "sources" that are "independent from the subject"? I think the breath of coverage from the multiple independent sources covers these other 4 points of the WP:GNG at least: The Guardian[1][2][3], The Drum[4][5][6][7], Oxford Mail[8], It's Nice That[9], New Internationalist[10], British Journal of Photography[11], Marketing Week[12], Digital Arts of IDG[13], Mashable[14]/CNN[15], The Verge[16]/CNET[17], and others you can see at the article.Regarding the continued interest bit, I see your point about the coverage being about each product individually and not about the company directly, but the fact that their work is continuously covered should be considered. If there weren't (continued interest in the company's products) then there wouldn't be coverage of the products in the first place, right?Finally, the fact that they run two notable, award-winning magazines (Huck and Little White Lies) doesn't seem to count for much... that coupled with the fact that you don't agree that the company passes WP:NCORP, what would you think about a redirect to Huck instead of outright deletion (as I mentioned in my initial response to this AfD if there wasn't enough support for keeping the article)? I still maintain that the amount of coverage about the company is enough, but clearly just because I think something doesn't mean that it is so (obviously). - PaulT+/C 15:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you're saying that the company lacks significant coverage, we agree on that point. And that's a reason to delete. I do not see the point of a redirect to articles which are themselves the spam products of (mostly) since-blocked SPAs promoting the company's work, including the none-too-subtly-named TCOLondon. And that's enough time spent on this. Bakazaka (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding that last point, clearly I'm missing something. Company "L" makes product "D" for client "F". "L"'s product "D" has coverage mentioning "D" and the client "F", but company "L" is not explicitly mentioned because that would be counterproductive to company "L"'s aims for their product -- they are creating the product for "F" after all, not to promote themselves. In that case you are saying coverage about product "D" doesn't count toward "L"'s notability and that this coverage doesn't count even though there would be no coverage of anything if it weren't for "L" creating "D" in the first place, is that accurate? (Nevermind the additional fact that there is other coverage mentioning "L", "D", and "F" together in other places.) I don't see how coverage of "L"'s product "D" doesn't count toward "L"'s notability since it is clearly indepentently stated that "D" is "L"'s work.Let me step back and confirm some points of agreement/disagreement between us: The disputed point on notability is primarily about the lack of "significant" coverage (in your view), correct? Do you agree that there is widespread (even if it is not significant in your view) "coverage" from "reliable" "sources" that are "independent from the subject"? I think the breath of coverage from the multiple independent sources covers these other 4 points of the WP:GNG at least: The Guardian[1][2][3], The Drum[4][5][6][7], Oxford Mail[8], It's Nice That[9], New Internationalist[10], British Journal of Photography[11], Marketing Week[12], Digital Arts of IDG[13], Mashable[14]/CNN[15], The Verge[16]/CNET[17], and others you can see at the article.Regarding the continued interest bit, I see your point about the coverage being about each product individually and not about the company directly, but the fact that their work is continuously covered should be considered. If there weren't (continued interest in the company's products) then there wouldn't be coverage of the products in the first place, right?Finally, the fact that they run two notable, award-winning magazines (Huck and Little White Lies) doesn't seem to count for much... that coupled with the fact that you don't agree that the company passes WP:NCORP, what would you think about a redirect to Huck instead of outright deletion (as I mentioned in my initial response to this AfD if there wasn't enough support for keeping the article)? I still maintain that the amount of coverage about the company is enough, but clearly just because I think something doesn't mean that it is so (obviously). - PaulT+/C 15:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- The reason that WP:CORPDEPTH requires ongoing coverage of a product is because companies often place PR stories at product release time, so ongoing coverage of a product demonstrates continued interest beyond the initial PR burst. These sources show individual PR bursts for a few specific products. So, again, fails WP:NCORP. As for claiming that sources that don't even mention the company are significant coverage, well, I sincerely hope that you do not accept that for other articles. Bakazaka (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Their work is mentioned plenty often enough to count as "ongoing". Each project mentioned does get coverage (and there are more examples in the article). The Time Out (documentary for Facebook) and Fast Company(Nike's ad campaign) sources directly cover their work even if the company itself isn't explicitly mentioned. - PaulT+/C 05:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Ongoing" is not met with any of the coverage you've cited, so it's still a failure of WP:CORPDEPTH. Additionally, the CNET "coverage" is mostly a reprint of The Verge article, which itself is admittedly based almost entirely on information provided by the company. The Telecom Tech News piece has a passing mention of the company and two sentences on the book. The others are brief mentions of products that the company has produced. The Time Out source and Fast Company sources don't even mention the subject of this article, and the The CMA source only mentions the company in passing as the parent of Huck in its two short paragraphs. The company verifiably exists, and it has done work, but it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Given that the coverage is almost entirely routine and/or based on company-provided information, it is WP:PROMO because it is an extension of the company's PR efforts. Whether or not you intended it that way, it's still a regurgitation of the company's story about itself. Bakazaka (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete No significant coverage. funplussmart (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- See the respones above. - PaulT+/C 04:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Actually, in addition to the above, see this article about their work at New Internationalist. - PaulT+/C 04:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.