Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbone Smolan Agency

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. The points raised concerning borderline-WP:G11 candidacy translate to an irrecoverable NPOV policy violation, which supercedes the question of notability alone; and, although an argument is being made that it can be recovered, as of me stumbling upon it for closing, nothing has been done to address that issue. Consensus does seem to be, however, that the article is welcome to be re-created should that issue be resolved. slakr^\ talk / 02:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carbone Smolan Agency

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

I think the agency is probably notable, but the article is so promotional that it should be started over--it would have to be rewritten very fundamentally to eliminate the personal anecdotes, the quotes from the founders, the list of clients, the list of influences that amounts to name-dropping, the long list of trivial mentions in various publications, and the many references sourced merely to their own archives. I suspect from the name of the contributor and the totally inappropriate style that this is either the work of many of our not-very-skilled paid editors, or of some good faith editor thinking that this sort of writing is acceptable here on the grounds we have so many articles of business concerns that are the work of such editors. It's time to clean the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Clearly enough articles to show is notable; easy enough to cut down or tag for improvement if we don't have someone available to do it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (as person who accepted it at AfC); I raised questions about the tone on the discussion at my talkpage about it and those were answered to my satisfaction. Notability is definitely met, and although the mentions in the sources can be viewed as trivial, there are a lot of them. Article can be easily improved. APerson (talk!) 20:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slow-delete or incubate per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION and/or WP:G11. APerson may think the article can be easily fixed, but seems not to have done so. APerson should never have accepted the article for creation in the first place: NOTFORPROMOTION seems to disallow such articles. There's an unreasonable backlog of numerous articles tagged as promotional, and it's safe to assume the backlog is steadily growing. Unless someone fixes the article before this AfD finishes, let's cut down the backlog by simply deleting this article. If an unbiased editor really cares, they can recreate it later. —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with leave to immediately recreate, following the logic at User:Stifle/Keep and cleanup. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2014 (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.