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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 04:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AI Global Media[edit]

AI Global Media (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)

No assertion of notability; Seems to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Chris Troutman (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the notability lies in the number of magazines they publish which is why there are few sources for AI itself. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: I don't think that's what NCORP or GNG says. How do imagine number of magazines published is a criterion? Chris Troutman (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the GNG we should consider not just AI but also the coverage of the magazines they publish (and the awards) as they are all the product of the same business. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A WP:PROMO article largely about the company's promotional awards. The article states:

• "Awards made by AI are accompanied by publicity in the online magazines published by the company for which the winner pays."

This content is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood. The article isn't promotional, the company's activities are to market bogus awards that promote their clients. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete References fail to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The cumulative effect of numerous mentions of the company and its various magazines is enough to establish notability under WP:GNG, and the article itself has been much expanded since it was nominated for deletion. It is clearly not a WP:PROMO article, as evidenced by the extensive efforts by User:KatHallAIGlobal (presumably someone acting on behalf of the company) to remove content, or blank the article, or to replace it with promotional text. Where we have sufficient independent sourcing to do so, perhaps common sense suggests that we have a role in informing our readers about the operations of such companies. Edwardx (talk) 00:32, 24 August 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.