Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Caraway Group

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 January 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. With due respect to Augustabreeze's efforts, this delete close comes with no prejudice to an early recreation if better sources can be found. I can userfy the article on request. Wifione ^Message 18:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Caraway Group[edit]

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

A 7-person PR firm that is not the subject of two in-depth reliable sources as required by WP:CORP. Most sources are press releases and broken links. Being minority-owned is not really that notable and has not attracted substantial attention from RS'. CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep HuffPost is pretty big and is 1/2 of two required media references. Can't somebody find one more independent media reference to this group? (btw, some billion dollar companies have 4-person lobbying groups in D.C.; four people is all you need to keep up a regular liaison with Congress.-Augustabreeze (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to streetwise.co which is owned by Conde Nast, a world famous media organization. With the addition of one more independent media reference, this AfD should be formally changed to KEEP.-Augustabreeze (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete:Pure advertising, zero coverage except press releases. Not notable. Did Google News searches, found nothing. Please note the double voting above. Marksterdam (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate keep Hello, AfD contributor, thank you for your contribution. Please note the AfD is not a vote. It is an attempt to establish whether or not the topic has reached compatibility with WP notability guidelines. The added link streetwise.co is owned by Conde Nast, which is a universally recognized international media outlet. Huffington Post + Conde Nast = 2, repeat, 2 independent major newspaper articles about the establishment. Thanks. This isn't a popularity contest. It isn't a horse race. I don't like the Caraway Group. I don't like Park Cho-rong. THE NEW YORK TIMES and THE WASHINGTON POST declare that Yolanda Caraway is at the highest reaches of Democratic Party politics. That is it. End story. -Augustabreeze (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Please note that Augustabreeze has put a keep vote in bold three times now. While it may not be a popularity contest, the actual tally so far is 2 delete and 1 keep. I took a quick glance at the article's new sources, but they appear to be directory-type sources, brief mentions, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 15:16, 1 January 2015 (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.