Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5W 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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Whether or not the article should be merged with Ronn Torossian is a matter of editorial consensus. Sandstein (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

5W Public Relations
The article on 5W Public Relations blatantly violates Wikipedia policy regarding several issues including NPOV and Spam. The author of this article, User:Judae1, is an employee of 5W Public Relations and has created the majority of its edits. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages for PR firms nor is it to be abused with self-promotion and advertising. This article qualifies for "Speedy Delete." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agavtouch (talk • contribs)
 * — Agavtouch (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The nominator of this AfD appears to be a single purpose account whose only edits are directly related to this article and an associated AfD. Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - More of the same from the same meatpuppet. See Articles for deletion/Ronn Torossian for arguments on both sides.  -- Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Juda, your hostile and aggressive attacks in welcoming me to Wikipedia does not conform to Wikipedia community style. Rather than trying "spin" for which you are employed to do at 5W Public Relations and attempting to place new Wikipedia editors on the defensive, you should take it upon yourself to apologize to the Wikipedia community for breaching NPOV and SPAM. If honest and objective, you should also vote to delete this self-promotional article. -- Agavtouch (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article lacks proper independent sources. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:RS. -- Michaelbusch (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fact New York Times, Brash P.R. Guy Grabs Clients, Ink, STEVEN KURUTZ, February 20, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judae1 (talk • contribs) 19:39, November 16, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment both Judeal and Agavtouch have been warned for edit-warring in connect with this article. -- Michaelbusch (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

--Calton | Talk 02:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference better Every sentence is referenced, but some to press releases. The New York Times and other coverage make it notable. I think here you are trying to punish the article for people editing it with a COI, which doesn't make sense. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)  * This user is in violation of 3RR
 * Agavtouch, let's hear why a vote to keep this article violates WP:3RR. Feel free to respond, or have one of your sockpuppets handle this one for you. Alansohn (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The NYT article is sufficient, no matter who added it. DGG (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. COI is not a reason to delete.  List this on WP:COIN and warn the warring parties with threats of blocks. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. One brief NYT article -- predominantly because of the celebrity namedropping -- does not importance make.
 * Comment That brief NYT article runs four pages in the Internet version. For comparison Norman Mailer's obituary was 5 Internet pages. Please at least look at the reference, even if you don't read it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. It is mentioned in passing in any of the reliable "sources." The article is an abuse of Wikipedia. It is mainly edited by Juda, an employee (which is scummy on its own). Juda knows he has a COI yet he edits the page. This whole thing reeks of an abuse of Wikipedia. Juda and works at the PR firm. He is doing it for publicity for his publicity firm. The irony is sickening. This is obviously spam. Who is going to benefit from reading this article that is written like an advertisement. --Agha Nader (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. NPOV and COI are not article deletion criteria. Remove unsourced material or rewrite. Owen&times; &#9742;  02:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (repeated from above) The NYT article runs four pages in the Internet version, its not "mentioned in passing". For comparison Norman Mailer's obituary was 5 Internet pages. Please at least look at the reference, even if you don't read it. This AFD is more about conflicting egos, than about notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:COI. The nominator provides clear evidence of lack of NPOV yet it appears that sockpuppets and meatpuppets working for 5W Public Relations ignore these facts and vote keep as they attack Wikipedia policy. This article was an exercise in abuse and I suggest to adms to follow the digital trail here in Wikipedia of those who voted keep as they have created several paid entries for the clients of 5W Public Relations in Wikipedia. Batright (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources that cover the article subject in depth, all of which satisfy the Notability standard. The nominator seems to be unaware of, and have violated at length, his obligations to address issues of prospective notability of articles through edits and other improvements before the mad rush to AfD. the notability of the firm is inarguable. Alansohn (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Bad faith nomination as pointed out by User:Alansohn --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced, notability established. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: "I am a Senior Vice President of the Government and Corporate Practice at 5W Public Relations" states Juda S. Engelmayer in his Wiki user page, the writer who authored and edited and voted on this article on 5W Public Relations. Do we see anything wrong with this picture? In addition, many of those who have voted Keep here in light of several clear violations of Wikipedia policy including SPAM and NPOV have attacked the nominator rather than address this advertisement for a PR company. If new editors have joined Wikipedia as a result of this and or other AFD's it is a compliment for Wikipedia and her growth. In their desperation to keep this advertisement on Wikipedia these new and senior editors should not become the target of a professional, paid, discredit campaign against them by employees of 5W Public Relations. We must ask ourselves one question. Has Wikipedia become a Yellow Pages for which PR firms may arrogantly promote themselves in their own words and then use spin tactics to retain the article or is the Wikipedia community responsible for improving the standards of quality information based on objective and accountable fact? Batright (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thats because Juda S. Engelmayer makes clear his relationship to the company. A conflict of interest, is only a reason to be extra careful in reviewing an article, as with Jimmy Wales editing his own Wikipedia entry. You on the other hand are one of multiple accounts created just to nominate this article for deletion, and vote for the deletion. You are the disruptive one, trying to eliminate an article that meets both notability and verifiability. We know Juda S. Engelmayer and his story, what is yours? What are your reasons for trying so hard to delete it? What are your ulterior motives? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC) * This user is in violation of 3RR
 * Keep, and incidentally merge the article on its boss into it. I do wonder why the article takes the NY Post and "Fox News" seriously, though. Still, oddities like this can be cleared up, in an article on a company that (rather absurdly) seems notable. (Yes, companies will pay money for spin, and this company sells spin. This fact may be sad and it may be hilarious, but it's a verifiable fact all the same.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: In addition to violating SPAM, 3RR and NPOV policy on this article, 5W Public Relations has been paid to author and has spammed other articles in Wikipedia including: Joe Francis and several others. Just connect many of the users on this page who have voted Keep and their history of "contributions." These "contributions" match clients listed on 5W Public Relations client page. 5W Public Relations is an established and documented spammer on Wikipedia Agavtouch (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with User:Agavtouch. SPAM, NPOV and 3RR documented violations committed by 5W Public Relations for themselves and their clientele on Wikipedia. This should have been a Speedy Delete. Heathspic (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.