Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lopez Negrete 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 delete. Concerns about paid editing, concerns about most of the sources being non-independent/spam/promo press releases, and concerns about failure of WP:NOTE, and lack of significant third party coverage. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lopez Negrete Communications[edit]

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

Article was created by User:Lopez Negrete Communications in 100% html code. Another editor without any edits, User:Cgiambi, removed all tags. I think the article is self-published and Wikipedia is not the place of self-promotion. Magioladitis (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copying a message from my talk page: I'm a third-party consultant outside of the company that contacted me to help them - as a favor - with legitimizing their entry. I have no ties to the company other than that. According to what I've read in the Wikipedia manual on Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) this entry follows all those guidelines. Everything in there is factual and cannot be negated - there are articles referenced there which prove that. The edits were made by myself and by my colleague MVelez (where you saw the 100%HTML code - there's no rule that says we cannot program the entry in HTML). This entry was NOT created for self-promotion - I wouldn't have done anything to do with it if it did. The company contacted me and MVelez to legitimize their web presence. This is no different than the entries for Walmart or Bank of America which are referenced in our entry. So, what can I do to keep you from deleting this? Help me with this please. Cgiambi (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but does "contacted" mean "hired"? Paid editing is strongly discouraged. (Even if no money changes hands, conflicts of interest can still occur.) At any rate, please leave the AFD tags on the page, you can make your case against deletion here. Hairhorn (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nope, contacted means contacted. There isn't any conflict of interest and as mentioned before, the article follows all guidelines for NPOV. Sorry, but I'm undoing your edit re: deletion due to AFD standards. I will admit, this is my first entry/edit and I am still getting used to the etiquette/format. I appreciate all help, but this page does not warrant deletion. Cgiambi (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 23:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the references and the notability of being the second-largest Hispanic PR company, but I have strong heartburn with Cgiambi's involvement. Woogee (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paid editing is advertising per se as far as I am concerned. And the "references" added, from what I can see of them, appear to be minor press releases announcing routine contracts[1], other press releases[2][3], or local trade coverage circulated in an aggregator of local business papers[4]. That stuff is not good enough for business notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Press releases aside, the article does list other sources that profile the company. --Pink Bull 04:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I focused on the link from Advertising Age, the one which is cited in the article as verification for the claims of being the "second largest" agency with "capitalized billings of $164 million". The link does NOT support the claims made. The agency is actually listed as the fifth largest, and its billings are given as $24 million. That makes me suspicious of all the information in the article. Incidentally, the four larger agencies do not have Wikipedia entries. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 3 March 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.