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. Black Kite (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PMX Agency[edit]

PMX Agency (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)

My extensive PROD removed with the basis of adding sources but there are far worse concerns here, one is that this was clearly a company-influenced advertisement and the several uncommitted users involved with this one article show it, everything listed is also exactly what the company wants to advertise about itself. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will work to improve this piece asap. Multiple independent sources have been cited to establish notability, particularly in the Awards section. National media attention is one mark of notability for a company and that attention is referenced/cited. Although I realize "it's like other agencies' Wikipedia pages" is not a valid defense of notability, I used Covario, Performics and iCrossing as models.

Regarding the Awards section: the linked bullets are often the article titles used by third parties (e.g. the article is titled "Internet Retailer's 2010 Top500 Guide® Ranks PM Digital the Fastest Growing SEM Agency"). I will review the bullets' verbiage to change any that do not match the third party source's title to do so.

Regarding COI - I've fully disclosed my affiliation with the company in my User talk page. Article topics are verifiable with independent, third-party sources. I just discovered the

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/(({1))}|contribs]])

tag and will apply it to this article's talk page. Thank you.

Jclayc (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the page's History section and added a Coverage section to detail the past seven years of national, non-PR coverage the agency's work has received from independent sources like the American Marketing Association, CNBC, BusinessInsider, eMarketer, InternetRetailer and others.

Jclayc (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Run-of-the-mill WP:ARTSPAM with little to no encyclopedic value once you strip away the puffery. Lacks a breadth of coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy. Many of the supposed "non-PR coverage" links that the COI editor added in response to this AfD are actually primary sources, i.e. this, are not reliable sources, or do not actually cover the subject in depth. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for advertising. Citobun (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Edited Coverage section to eliminate any references that do not meet the definition of a secondary source (containing the author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts). Jclayc (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam. Nothing in the article suggests an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails gng. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your consideration. The final rationale I'll submit to this discussion is that, while it may be on the edge of notability, the article does contain non-trivial coverage of the company by multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject over an extended period of time that range from synthesis of the company's research to corporate acquisition to awards... It documents far more notable coverage than (for example) 90% of the other companies listed in sections like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_established_in_2001 If this deletion is part of a wider, more exclusionary approach to what companies are included in Wikipedia, so be it. It appears this article caught your attention before far more delete-worthy ones did. Jclayc (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Invalid argument. Read WP:OTHER CerealKillerYum (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2016 (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.