Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group SJR

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Group SJR (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)

Fails WP:NCORP, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. It took me three seconds to realize it's written in extremely promotional tone and that certain needs to be corrected for NPOV; but Fast Week, as I understand it is a respectable business magazine and it's covered in quite a depth. I've culled out all the press release type sources and I think routine trivial announcements coming from press releases should be culled out, but at the core, I can't really support deleting it given in-depth coverage. Graywalls (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leaning towards delete since as an agency, it doesn't look like there is any great exceptional work that would make it notable. Exploreandwrite (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like a company history, without much of any claim of notability other than earning a "Shorty" award. Beyond not seeing a point to the article, I could not find coverage that was independent of the advertising industry. This is important since many advertising trade journals (and awards!) are basically mutual back-scratching arrangements.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2019 (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.