Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webster Public Relations

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. Alex Shih ^Talk 01:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Webster Public Relations

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

Deleted G11, contested at ANi [1] reposted from an offline copy it seems. Bringing here as a procedural solution for discussion of notability and spammyness . Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep please point out the "spammyness" or anywhere in the article where you find advertising — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyjamesbalboa (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Careyjamesbalboa (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Please read WP:PROMO, use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes is not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable organization. This deletion discussion focuses on the notability of the subject, regardless of how well an article is written. Per the General notability guideline, subjects need to have significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This means that press releases and passing quotes do not establish notability. If there are independent sources that discuss this company (not its clients) in depth, then the subject is notable. Mere existence doesn't infer notability, nor does the opinion of any Wikipedia editors ("I like it" is as irrelevant as "I don't like it"). --Animalparty! (talk)
Delete - although the article lists several notable musical artists as clients, I see nothing which indicates that this firm is the primary PR representative of those artists. In addition, the sources listed are heavily weighted with obvious reprints of press releases, presumably issued by the firm itself. I therefore believe that the company fails notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are mentions-in-passing and regurgitation of WPR's own press releases, not in-depth, independent coverage that establishes notability per WP:GNG. Many of them are not about the company but about Kirt Webster personally. The COI nature of this is pretty clear, with the all "I know celebs" snapshots. This isn't an encyclopedia article, its basically a social media profile. WPR needs to avail itself of LinkedIn, not Wikipedia. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 00:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me note that the photos that were added were not uploaded by the article creator as part of the current effort, but were created by someone with a very detectable conflicting interest (not that that's illegit in image uploading itself) months to over a year ago. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2017 (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.