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 Keep, but cleanup, please. Resolute 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incisive Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails to establish notability. Article a little bit 'spammy' . Hammer1980·^talk 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I disagree with the nom with regard to notability: this sounds like a big-box publishing house. However, the inordinate number of redlinks in the article warrants a thorough cleanup, maybe even a rewrite from scratch. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems a notable company. ft.com search reports 102 articles mentioning it. Matt 03:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.115.128 (talk)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Noteable company, horrid article. Needs extensive cleanup and is borderline spam. Majoreditor (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agreed, the article has a number of shortcomings. At the moment it's a dry list of facts that needs fleshing out, and the numerous red links – some to topics that will probably never have their own articles – make it look kind of "broken". But, assuming that the facts are accurate (I haven't checked but I don't see anyone disputing this), I don't see why it is spammy. Wouldn't we expect the finished article to list the company's important deals and its most important titles? Even the PR-speak claim that "the firm has grown quickly" seems in this case to be amply borne out by the list of acquisitions that follows. Matt 20:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC).

• Delete or merge with APAX. Seems very spammy and not that notable. Can always be recreated if it is notableMbisanz (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2007 (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.