Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workshop Digital

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Workshop Digital (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)

30-person marketing company with purely local or other trivial awards. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promo piece on a run-of-the-mill digital marketing agency that is in no way unique, remarkable, interesting or noteworthy. Mduvekot (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Understand that this article may appear on the fringe of notability, but it's not a "promo piece." All cited references are legitimate, third-party sources, albeit primarily local and regional ones. OpenWork is the exception and intended to demonstrate wider appeal, as is the list of clientele to reinforce notability within the industry. From a local perspective, organization's relocation to Shockoe Slip reflects revitalization of the area that includes long-time tenants The Martin Agency and new offices for CarMax. Turnaphrase (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I have seen an article defended as notable on the basis that two notable firms are in the same neighborhood. As fir the likely significance of even that, note the number of employees and the size of the charitable contributions. When it has not merely "intended to demonstrate wider appeal" , but has actually done so, will be time for an article.. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is a misreading of the argument. The organization is not being defended on the "basis that two notable firms are in the same neighborhood"; the historic downtown area (Shockoe Slip) is notable and, therefore, organizations central to its revitalization are useful in the explanation of why the area has changed in recent years. Additionally, the OpenWork profile reflects coverage and notability beyond local relevance—"demonstrating wider appeal." It was the "intent" of the inclusion of that reference to achieve that goal. Turnaphrase ( talk ) 5:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is hardly any claim of significance here. A small 30 person company with very less coverage, (which is local). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability is not inherited; this can be extended to "just because a company is in a notable location does not make the company notable." This company fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a WP:PROMO piece on an unremarkable company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2017 (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.