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. insufficient reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promax/BDA[edit]

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

A promotional article about promoters, written by a COI account to advertise itself. Is there anything salvageable here that isn't sourced to mutually congratulatory trade publications? Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a press release [1], with the lead in "The keynote address at the 2011 PromaxBDA conference, taking place June 28 to 30 in New York City, will be delivered by Al Gore, former US VP and chairman and co-founder of Current Media.". There are other references. Yes, it is spammy, yes it needs rewriting, but they are a truly global NPO and there is a ton of coverage about them, and they are over 50 years old. This isn't the same as some new startup trying to make themselves look bigger than they are. The article does need about 6 inches worth of tags, but they are notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - press releases are not reliable evidence for anything except that somebody had access to a printer. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment One of these should suffice. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. There are others as well. Again, I agree the article is junk as is, I'm just saying the NPO is notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: All references above are for publicity for a single trade show that has not yet happened, and mostly about a single (most likely paid-for) speech that may have not even been written yet. #2 (news.yahoo.com) is a direct feed of #1 (prnewswire.com); #3 (todotvnews.com) is a free trade magazine of uncertain WP:RS-to-churnalism ratio. #4 (rnrevents.com) is a straight non-notable company's own website saying they are a vendor for some service offered by Promax. #5 (tvweek.com) is a brief event summary with such neutral information as that the president of the company says it is "delivering the insight and information that inspires unique ideas and opportunities that drive new revenues". #6 is a single mention in a list of every "award" Larry King has ever received. --Closeapple (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for now, giving it the benefit of the doubt, but it needs a total overhaul; there's no more than a stub's worth of appropriate prose. This is not "non-profit" in the sense of a charity; it appears to be a media trade organization to teach each other how to manipulate the public into obedience for profit. It looks like some of this could be copy-paste/copyvio from somewhere: "entertainment and information content marketing leaders" is not the kind of phrase that flows from unbiased writers or other normal human beings. If it doesn't get replaced with good prose soon, it should just be chopped to a stub and re-nominated for deletion based on what sources (if any) are left after the churnalism is gone. --Closeapple (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the coverage I can find looks like self promotion. For a 55 year old organization I would expect to see something more substantial if it were notable. Pburka (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2011 (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.