Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walker Sands 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Sands Communications[edit]

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

This appears in no way to be a notable company of any sort and has been created by a user who may have a conflict of interest in creating articles on corporations (Chicago2011 (talk · contribs) has contributed COI-like edits to Vector Marketing, an article with a history of COI-related activity). Most of the references in the article are self-referential to the company website anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 02:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 02:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Ryulong's assessment. Also, this IS a PR firm after all, and the article makes it hard to edit as it would need to be totally rewritten in order to make it encyclopedic. So far, all I see is a summery of an brochure. Phearson (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG with no significant coverage in any (independent and secondary) sources. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong has decided to label all of my articles for deletion, even articles that are completely pertinent. The fact that the article is a public relations firm means nothing with respect to its notability. Nor does the fact that I contributed FACTUAL, UNBIASED content to an article with a history of biased content. Is improving the tone of content not an overarching goal of this encyclopedia project? Chicago2011 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search results tell me that this company is good at its business of online publicity, because I get oodles of ghits, but I don't find evidence of notability per WP:N and WP:ORG in those ghits. A relatively new company, fairly local in its scope, in the business of marketing -- nothing unusual. --Orlady (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2011 (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.