Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Murphy (branding consultant)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Murphy (branding consultant)

[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)

This article currently fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary sources. Iskandar 323 (talk) Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author has since retrieved live versions of some of the broken links that had resulted in a lack of citation. These may or may not be considered enough to establish WP:BASIC and WP:GNG and the general merit of the article likely still needs discussing. Iskandar 323 (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weighing the restoration of this article's links and the supporting bibliography, I retract my proposed deletion. Iskandar 323 (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – oppose retraction - This is a PROMO article that relies mostly on interviews (which are not independent sources) and a piece by The Marketing Society, an organization that looks like a trade association to promote marketers, meaning it is also likely not independent. My BEFORE is returning mostly churnalism. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is possible that many of the sources would be better directed towards an article on the company Interbrand, which does seems to have had a demonstrable and notable impact on the history of the business discipline of brand marketing. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Are there aspects of the article that are important for notability and rely on churnalism? Perhaps they can be addressed. Frans Fowler (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Since the article was nominated for deletion, I have restored the references to secondary sources, which are all reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of Murphy. (For instance, one of those sources is an interview with him broadcast by BBC Radio 4. Quite apart from the interest of its content, it shows that the BBC considers Murphy notable enough to transmit a serious programme that focuses on him.) I have also added references to two other sources that demonstrate his notability and the significance of his work. I would suggest (as does the nominator, above) that the question of notability can be resolved in favour of keeping the article.

The nominator and I have both made some changes to the layout and style of the article since it was proposed for deletion. The general merit of the article can be discussed on the article's Talk page, as can any aspect that might be perceived as promotional.

Indy beetle remarks (above) that The Marketing Society (one of the sources to which the article refers) "looks like a trade association to promote marketers, meaning it is also likely not independent". As far as I can see from some Web research, it doesn't promote marketers; rather, it appears to promote professional development and the exchange of best-practice expertise among marketing practitioners and teams. In particular, the piece the article refers to is an objective (sometimes critical) assessment of the past, present, and future of brand valuation, at the time it was written.

The secondary source references that I have restored had recently been removed when the article was nominated for deletion, because they were broken. There is a how-to guide on link rot that suggests why it might be better to tag, and keep, dead links.

Declaration of (dis)interest: I started the John Murphy article. I have never had any social, commercial, or other contact or relationship whatsoever with Murphy or any organisation or business he is involved in. I came to the subject in the course of translating a company's annual report, for which I needed to research Interbrand. Conscientious translators often do research, and Wikipedia articles such as this are an invaluable resource. Frans Fowler (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly not helpful for the Interband article to be deleted earlier this year. That was a bad call. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2021 (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)} 19:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frans Fowler makes a compelling case, and the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Appears to pass WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2021 (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.