I've seen recurrent removal of valid links from this article. A full quote from Marketingsherpa is removed, I suspect because Marketingsherpa is a paywall site. However, so are most scientific journals and the New York Times which are still be used in wikipedia references, if you google the phrase itself you will be able to confirm the article states this in Google cache. Then the links supporting Adland being "used as a source for advertising news and images" are removed. Perhaps this line could suffice without the links to articles where the images are 'courtesy Adland' or 'Ad-rag.com'? The important fact that Adland changed URL from ad-rag.com and commercial-archive.com to adland.tv keeps getting removed as well, together with a link to svd.se which supports the statement. 67.23.5.105 (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC) ~/// Orngavk
- Please read the comments I made when I edited the article. I don't even know what a "paywall site" means so that's probably not the reason. I would also suggest you read Talk:Åsk Wäppling and User_talk:SirShill. GameOn (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Afternoon, thank you for replying. "Paywall" is what Murdoch does. I'll need clarification still, as it might be the phrasing that needs reworking. The article states that news sources get their images from Adland, adding examples to support this statement. You are removing these, while adding the notability template. 18:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)/// Orngavk_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.23.5.105 (talk)