Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clout 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Clout Communications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article does not meet notability guidelines and the page is being used for promotion and advertising by individuals who have a conflict of interests and are involved in the company. Tags have been added to request the page be improved but they are repeatedly removed. Rushton2010 (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 16:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination; another public relations business using Wikipedia as a free ad host. Google News results are remarkably sparse, and reveal that the various sources cited but not linked in text are a series of incidental mentions in unrelated stories. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as sheer WP:PROMO and WP:ADVERT that fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete Would be fair enough if this policy was applied consistently but a casual browse through Wikipedi would throw up many pages very similar but somehow OK. Why, for instance, is Clout Communications less worthy than, say, Freud Commuications - which I used as a model (as advised by Wikipedia editing guidelines). I noted that Clout was no more or less notable, no more or less a puffery, than Freud and others - so what is the issue. The issue is, purely and simply, value judgments and not a transgression of the spirit or academic credentials of Wikipedia edits. Value Judgments bring Wiki into disrepute as much as any alleged commercialism and damage its reputation as a good source. There is no advertising no any commercial value whatsoever in clout Communications or most of the others. It is a simple statement of factual accuracy and has no commercial value whatsoever to anyone involved. Anyone who says that simply does not understand how a PR firms works - they don't need to advertise. Picknick99 (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Notable clients do not confer WP notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2013 (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.