Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zigma8

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zigma8[edit]

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

Article created by paid editor and expanded by another paid editor. Prod removed by article creator (paid editor). Article is referenced to two press releases, a primary source, and a commercial site listing it as the best (of two) agencies in Teheran. It is a small (8 employees apparently) company which has apparently received one award and most importantly no significant attention in reliable, independent sources, as required by WP:CORP. Fram (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is 1st article of mine to be created as a paid editor. I have created more than 50 notable articles before that and I know what WP:CORP is. I've written it from WP:NPOV. Whereas other paid editor is concerned, he was hired to make name correction in page. I took this paid project just because it is notable and needs to be created. It is only Iranian agency to be member of AAAA, moreover it is awarded by Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. The article does require further references to verify, doesn't mean we AfD it. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the first Iranian member of the AAAA is not giving any notability if it hasn't been extensively remarked upon in the press (excluding press releases). The AAAA is a trade association, not a Hall of Fame. For the award, it is very unclear how often it is given, i.e. how exceptional it is, and again whether it has gotten any attention. As I couldn't find other good references for this, AfD is exactly the way to go. Please, in the future if you make new articles as a paid editor, use the Draft namespace instead where neutral editors can check your work. Fram (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Clearly passes WP:GNG and also meets Wikipedia notability standards. Most of content is covered by references.New baba (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- In what way does it "clearly" pass GNG? There is not a single source there that establish notability, the sources are two press releases, a listing on a trade association, and a listing as one of two Teheran-based agencies in a commercial site. Fram (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this is to be kept then it needs to be on the basis of notability in Iran, rather than via the cultural cringe of being the first Iranian agency to be a member of an American trade association. Does it have significant coverage in independent reliable sources in Persian? I note fron another discussion that the article creator appears to think that sources have to be in English. That is not so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sir this is Wikipedia English so need to have English references in order to understand & review by neutral user. Are you trying to say that I should've add persian references so that a reviewer has to translate the whole article in english & find the part where it mentions "Zigma8" and what about it. I know as per WP:VUE english is preferred that's what I've done.
      - My comment was intended to help you save this article. Evidence of notability in Iran, by means of significant coverage in independent reliable sources in any language, will count for a lot more than being a member of an American trade association. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - standard searches do not reveal significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable ad agency and no indications of notability. I'm not seeing enough independent coverage to meet GNG & CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this has clearly only been started for PR uses, nothing at all comes close to both non-PR and then also convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 23 August 2016 (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.