Deletion of Out Now Consulting (2nd Nomination)

Comment: Multinational advertising company with international coverage. I suppose more detailed coverage in sources would be preferable, but the fact it is covered at all (and in such diverse sources) leads me to believe the company is notable. Content has been improved since the AfD started and additional sources added. Looks like it meets  to me. Articles about companies, especially PR ones will always carry some risk of advertising, but I think this company meets our inclusion standards. Anything beyond that is just cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: as failing 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: weakly. Marketing consultancies need to pass a much higher bar, IMO, than, say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hikari (fish food)|fish food brands. There are several reasons: marketing consultancies tend to lack physical plants, and do not generally sell their products directly to consumers, so the sort of independent commentary we look for may be elusive. Also, being in the business of promotion, they are going to be looked at much more closely for |conflict of interest. This business may be somewhat unusual, in that it proposes to help businesses tailor ad campaigns to the interests of gay people. I am not yet convinced that it has much note or recognition ''outside the world of marketing consultants
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: How is a promotions and marketing company that focuses on the LGBT market any different in  to a promotions and marketing company that focuses on sports fanatics? or single mums? I do not agree that the niche that this company applies itself to makes it at all notable on its own, and, sadly, that seems to be the ''basis'' of this article's support. I have read the entire discussion, article, references and do not believe that  exists to anywhere near the high level that a company of this nature (marketing and promotions) would require on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I think it is highly likely that the vast majority of the editors that will be involved in the maintenance of this article will come from within this particular company, () or have a direct involvement with this company. Can people in this position write POV? Yes. Is it likely that they will? No. Also, I must comment that  is recommended to NEVER BE USED as an argument to keep or delete an article, and has been used extensively in this debate. Even though I read through the entire proceeding text, I agree with the nominator and was not convinced that this article was any more than careful 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N||WP:SOAP||WP:NPOV||WP:GOOGLEHITS||WP:VSCA)

Comment: This debate seems to have been sidetracked entirely into a discussion of Google hits from a lot of redlinked editors. Note that the ''primary bar'' here is |notability - which means coverage in independent sources (remembering this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper or a prospectus) - and |verifiability against those sources for every claim made in the article. I see nothing in any of the above which provides this. Also note that AfD is not a vote - see the instructions for |AFD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:AFD)

Comment: Seems to me that this is an advert.  |Hole in the ground test also applies.  Finallly, internal sources are not good
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground (WP:HOLE)

Comment: I just found amongst my thesis research papers a half page file article that appeared as an insert from "Het Financieele Dagblad" - a Dutch daily newspaper that inserts an English language insert into the International Herald Tribune in the Netherlands market. It is dated February 5, 2002 and on page 2 is a large photo of Ian Johnson. The article is headed "Tapping into the €400 bn (euro) gay market", subhead is "Marketing group Out Now advises clients on ways of targeting 'pink' euro". It's copy starts "Firms across Europe have long treated the gay and lesbian market as an unknown quantity. Now, Australian marketeer Ian Johnson, who in 1993 founded a consultancy focusing exclusively on the gay and lesbian market in Australia, has opened an office in Amsterdam to help clients tap into what he considers a highly lucrative market..." It goes on for almost a half a broadsheet newspaper page. That seems to be another  |highly notable secondary reliable verifiable source this discussion should also include. I am not sure if there is allowed to be attached jpeg scans to a WP article maybe someone could assist me with advice on that - I will see if there is, and later today, when I get time, will scan and try to include in the discussion if that is possible
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: With due respect to WJBscribe, the core issue is the higher standard that needs to be met for a marketing firm in relation to  and , and this does not meet the policy in spirit, and by the very thinnest of margins meets it in letter. As the vast majority of the content the subject puts out is for the primary purpose of self-promotion of it's business and services, often thinly disguised as research and new information, it's a #SELF|primary sources issue. It's the whole Letter Vs. Spirit debate, and on face while it may meet the cited policies, it does not come close to meeting the policies intent (spirit). I have seen thin attempts from some contributors to cite selected references from selected people to push the POV regarding it's notability. As commented by a friend I spoke to earlier this evening "the most credible sources are the ones who say what you want to hear
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: I would say this article should be notable under  for  on the basis of at least three of the secondaries mentioned above, namely the Australian TV report, the textbook inclusion by Philip Kotler and the International Herald Tribune report on them. I have also seen and quoted them in my studies from the Kotler text here in the Netherlands
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CORP)

Comment: fails . Does not appear to be particularly notable as far as marketing firms go
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: I have not been a big wikipedia contributor true, but I didn't realise that meant I was not meant to be taken seriously in a debate like this. Just a note for the other editors - I have made few edits but most have been "outside this topic", unless commenting on other gay related articles counts as all being "on this topic". I still think the article is worth keeping in WP for all the other reasons given here. I also note earlier mention was made of  which seems relevant to me given all that has been said on notability here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: I don't agree that the discussion has been sidetracked. The Dutch textbook citing them mentioned by others does render notable per |notability as well as the Australian TV report about what they do meeting that and being |verifiable. I think the Google remarks started above because of me because I mistook what http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Out+Now+Consulting%22&hl=en&safe=off&start=180&sa=N "Ghits" meant in an early remark, but it also was one of the reasons cited by the nominee of the afd that started the discussion. When you get past the first few google pages there seem to be numerous citations referencing the company as being notable in their area of work. I also edited out material in the article I think may have been viewed as less than encyclopaedic
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)