Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publicity Guaranteed
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Publicity Guaranteed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subsidiary company which managed to get in the news in 2007 for publicly shaming a client into paying an outstanding debt. Other than that one mention - originally brought about by a press release from the company, I can't find many reliable sources indicating the subject's notability. There's also a clear problem of COI and paid editing which, although (eventually) declared by User:Eclipsed (only after he was offered a full-time job with the parent company), is a serious concern. I have also blocked the creator of the article as a single purpose advertising-only account. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no inherent notability to distinguish this company from many similar organisations. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No secondary coverage outside that one incident, which is not enough to meet WP:CORP. January (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP with most mentions appearing to be rehashes of news releases by the company. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the CEO of this entity, I agree that the article shall be deleted. Although there are several other media reviews of Publicity Guaranteed, it does not rise to "substantial coverage", required by Wikipedia for inclusion of corporate profiles. As it's a small unit of our group and we don't actively promote it, it's unlikely that "substantial coverage" will develop. AKonanykhin (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - because it doesn't really meet requirements of WP:CORP. Currently only has reliable sources for 1 incident related to the company, but nothing else to denote real notability. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 14:49, 23 November 2010 (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.