Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Twig 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.

Whilst I do not believe it would be reasonable here to deny the possiblity of the subject matter Black Twig Communications being notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia, it is apparent that notability has not been established through the inclusion of reliable and independent sources. I'd like to encourage the on-going attempts at providing evidence of notablity here, and I would be glad to see them continue, but at the same time, it is simply not prudent that we maintain an article entry for a non-notable subject.

The result of this debate is, at this time, to Delete. Anthøny 04:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Black Twig Communications

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable company SGGH speak! 09:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete spammy article about a company with apparently only one reference from independent reliable source Ohconfucius (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, likely speedy delete candidate, a non consumer publicity business with no showing at all of particular notability. They're a full service communications agency specializing in public relations, marketing, web development and creative services, and guess what, they want a Wikipedia article about themselves. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * KeepIs there a way to cite more sources to keep this page from being deleted? The current page cites 2 St. Louis Post Dispatch articles, a St. Louis Business Journal article and a St. Louis Small Business Monthly article. In addition, because Black Twig is St. Louis' largest privately-held PR firm, I feel that adds the credibility needed to have a page. Fleishman-Hillard, the other St. Louis-based PR firm that is publicly traded has a page and I used that page as a model of an acceptable Wikipedia entry.
 * One of Black Twig's clients is NutraSweet and there are a couple of articles in AdWeek and other publications about how Black Twig is instrumental in rebranding the packets. Would this help add to the credibility? I would like to try to improve the quality of this page as soon as possible. I feel that Black Twig deserves a page and I am trying to better learn how to meet the quality requirements. Any feedback would be helpful. Thanks! Mfullenkamp (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Fleishman-Hillard article you mentioned has been tagged with POV for months as it contains a lot of bias. This is not an article to use as a good reference. Think about it, all the articles in category: Public relations companies, are likely going to be biased if the companies have anything to say about it. And they are going to be the very best at disguising POV as neutral. To improve the article see wp:NPOV and WP:N for some more info. Faradayplank (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2008 (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.