Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resolution Media

Resolution Media

Delete This page serves no other purpuse than to provide a SEO-firm with a backlink from Wikipedia. Synlighet 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete advertising. Thryduulf 16:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete simple advertising.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.The article doesn't need to be deleted, just expanded to include more information relevant to this particular company. It's definitely not an advertisement, as it's in NPOV, is verifiable and contains some original research. It just doesn't contain enough original research. I added this page to give people some information about one of Omnicom Group's companies, and that is all it does. It does not "[emphasize] desirable qualities so as to arouse a desire to buy or patronize", as is the definition of advertising. It only gives information on a company, like hundreds of other company stubs and company pages on Wikipedia. This page is no more advertising for Resolution Media than those pages are for those companies, and does not violate any of Wikipedia's rules. It should be kept.

--Blackbryson 20:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "information relevant" is from PR Newswire, notoriously open to putting anything remotely worded as a press release up on a website. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Blackbryson
• Keep.. This is an impartial company stub with press releases/articles from a couple of ("notoriously") credible news sources.

--Z-Money 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.. agree with Z-Money, no reason for deletion.--BJCap33 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep looks fact based to me.-CJ

Delete according to the current guidelines--Eplekake 01:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be referenced often enough in its trade press to qualify as notable. It's not like Omnicom is fool enough to try to market its business services to Wikipedia editors. Monicasdude 03:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. —Cleared as filed. 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. *drew 06:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and obvious vote-stacking attempts. Closing admin, ignore all suspicious Keep votes. --Cyde Weys 06:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I should be fascinated to know exactly what criteria define a "suspicious" vote (and why only Keep votes are "suspicious". However I suspect that thr answer is simple :: it's an y vote that goes against what the cabal have already decided will happen. Convenient, that. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • I guess you could suspect something when you look at the history, oner use has "voted" several times and a number of users has "voted" almost at the same time, but keep in mind that this is not a vote. Unless someone can provide a strong justifiaction for the article it must be deleted, as it is now is is not up to wikipedia-standards. --129.240.71.123 10:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • There are a lot anon, single-article voters here, but they're on both sides; the original nominator's only other activity was a spurious AfD nomination (w/some semi-related talk). This anon is another example -- no other editing activity, just a citation of a non-existent "not up to standards" criterion for deletion and a made-up claim that some special "justifiaction" is needed. Monicasdude 11:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)