Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Agents

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. ST47 (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Agents

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is worse than nothing. None of the references given makes a clear case for notability, and much of the information is unverified. If this company is notable, the article needs to be properly referenced. If no one is willing to write an article with a verified claim of notability, it would be better to delete it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company has significant RS in multiple independent publications including a peer reviewed journal article: "Trust me. I'm an agent." The ever-changing balance between author, agent and publisher'; De Bellaigue, Eric; LOGOS: The Journal of the Book Community, July, 2008, Vol.19(3), p.109 (peer reviewed). The article gives a history of the formation of the company and its rapid success as a large agency. Other RS includes [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The article does need improvement, but that isn't a valid reason for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Do you have a link to the full text of the De Bellaigue article? I looked at this and it didn't mention United.

I looked at the sources you provided links to. Those may be RS but they are either not independent (based on corporate news releases), are routine coverage such as a change of personnel, or fail to provide significant coverage (mere mentions). I don't think they help establish the level of notability required by WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a later section of the article title "A Merger Gone Awry". I can only access through a proxy by my university so I have no url (its at ebscohost.com). Here is further info to help you locate. ISSN: 09579656; DOI: 10.2959/logo.2008.19.3.109; Accession Number: 502936977 Hope this helps. 4meter4 (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While 4meter4 has mentioned a possible book reference above, it is only a single reference and therefore does not meet the criteria for "multiple" references. Also, I am hesitant to accept it as a good reference because the indications are that 4meter4 fails to understand the criteria for establishing notability. It is not simply a search for reliable sources as stated above. References must provide significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content - the definition of Independent Content can be found at WP:ORGIND. Of the other references put forward, this from The Bookseller is based on an announcement and fails WP:ORGIND, this from deadline.com and this from screendaily.com are mere mentions-in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH, this from deadline.com is based on a company announcement and is only a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and finally this from the Evening Standard describes one of the founding agents of the company but provides no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 22 November 2019 (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.