Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environics Communications

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 Redirect to Environics. Article history retained should anyone find anything worth merging. Michig (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Environics Communications

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

No sign of notability from searches for sources (of which this page has none). Basil Monster 00:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

delele - no independent coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Environics is notable as a Canadian pollster, as seen here. I think the two subsidiary articles can be merged to parent article, which is just a stub anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I see the suggestion that there is "no independent coverage" is incorrect. There is, and it's national, in the Gnews results. This Globe and Mail feature is national. So is this one. Etc. But given the fact that the main article on the Environics group is just a stub, my preference would still be, for aid of navigation, to merge to one Environics Group main article, for as the boilerplate text at the end of the second G&M ref states: "The company is part of the privately owned Environics Group, which includes public relations company Environics Communications and Environics Research." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Environics. While the company does have a valid notability claim and reliable source coverage, I have to agree with Shawn in that we do not need three separate articles about Environics, Environics Communications and Environics Analytics as three separate standalone topics — at this level of substance, we only need one article about the whole company, with subsections for its communications and analytics divisions. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate blurb on an unremarkable business. This material belongs on a company web site, not in an encyclopedia. There's nothing to merge as the content is strictly spam; the page opens with: "...full-service, management-owned marketing communications and public affairs firm that builds integrated programs from digital to traditional for measurable results... " 'nough said. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear and blatant advertising showing this in fact never actually existed for anything else but advertising alone, WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 6 December 2016 (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.