Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arbitrarily0 (talk | contribs) at 14:11, 30 December 2009 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. Arbitrarily0  14:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adrenalina NYC

Adrenalina NYC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Article is an advert written solely by an employee of the company. marginal if any notability. would suggest if/when topic is notable that it is created by a un-biased party, not an employee β 07:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, a multicultural marketing and advertising agency. A publicity business using Misplaced Pages for publicity. References to brandweek.com and similar sites are not enough to show general notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the fact that a marketing company has notable clients does not establish its own notability (notability is not inherited) ... it would be different if they had won an award for that representation (or something similar). The conflict of interest is a serious issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Clever, very clever. I almost thought there was something there when I saw the WSJ reference, until I realized it was just a press release that they were republishing. Everything else is garbage. JBsupreme (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2009 (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.