Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crenshaw 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. SpinningSpark 00:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Crenshaw Communications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PR agency is not the subject of multiple, in-depth works as required by WP:CORP. Searches in Google News and PRWeek only reveal press releases, blurbs based on press releases, routine executive appointments and other trivial coverage. CorporateM (Talk) 04:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have to agree - all I found was press release and incidental mentions in stories about other things (e.g. client activites). While that may indicate some importance, we need coverage about the firm to satisfy notability requirements.  I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to a more general article ("Press relations agencies of New York") but it is unlikely anyone would be interested in spending the time to create such an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys! I would like to volunteer to clean this article up and provide it with actual independent, third-party stories that support its creation. From what I see, this is a smaller firm, though it is notable based on the amount of references -- perhaps not the depth, though -- it has generated. Most of the content, as it stands, is not supported. Here are a few of the pieces I can leverage to provide deeper context, per the WP:CORP. The entry will likely still be light after my edits, though it will actually be well-referenced.

Potential references (there are a ton of these out there):

[http://observer.com/2013/10/the-power-50-list/pr-power-list45/ 44. Crenshaw Communications] Kristen Stewart Voted Least Trusted Celebrity; Poll: Top 10 Most Trusted People in America This J.C. Penney Worker Was Fired For Telling The Truth About Its 'Fake' Prices The Real Reason Facebook Cracked Down On Guns (Moms, Of Course) Social Media Shouldn't Be an Echo Chamber Target's Reputation May Never Be The Same Again Lowe's criticized after fleeing Muslim reality show When Brands Take Risks and Fail

If you are okay with giving me an opportunity to edit, that would be great. I might need more time, however, between now and Wednesday (I think last day before deletion).

Thanks! Techieguy2012 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Taking a glance at the sources provided above, they look like the types of quotes, brief mentions and trivial rankings that were the rational for the nomination. If for some reason the article is kept though, certainly we would be better off with an improved version (I wouldn't recommend spending your time on it though until the AfD is closed) CorporateM (Talk) 23:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "44." A brief description of the company from a good source. This could go toward establishing notability, but only as a small piece.
 * "Kristen Stewart" - a quote by Crenshaw CEO; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
 * "J.C. Penny" - a quote by Crenshaw CEO; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
 * "Real Reason" - a quote by Crenshaw CEO; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
 * "Social Media" - a quote by Crenshaw director; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
 * "Target's" - quote + advice by Crenshaw CEO; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
 * "Lowe's" - quote + advice by Crenshaw CEO; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
 * "When Brands" - a quote by Crenshaw CEO; nothing about company - no notability imparted.
 * So, what we have is high quality sources relying on Crenshaw for opinion from time to time, but basically no coverage of the company. These quotes collectively show some importance, but if there are no articles about the company, there is nothing to base an article on.  We need at least one high quality sources (preferably two) that has written in depth (multiple paragraphs) about the company itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * These are all valid points, ThaddeusB. I'm going to dig into this a bit more as I think there may be some of that coverage, though it might be a bit old. Will keep you posted. Beyond that, I wonder if perhaps the CEO should have a page, instead, if this thing is deleted, given her footprint. Techieguy2012 (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To what degree are trade industry coverage worthwhile to establish notability? I see things from Mediabistro and other public relations industry outlets that have mentioned them quite a bit. These outlets have their own Wiki profiles, so does that mean the coverage meets the desired standard? Techieguy2012 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Trade magazine coverage of a PR firm by a PR trade magazine can be assumed to be PRu nless shown otherwise. Quotes and mentions are not signficant coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree that trade press cannot be used to establish notability or that PR trade magazines are just PR themselves. However, support that we need more than brief mentions, quotes or anything that looks like a re-written press release. What is needed is in-depth coverage where the PR firm is the subject of a substantial piece that can support a meaningful entry and is written by an independent professional journalist (not a contributor, guest author, byline from the company or re-written press release). Regarding awards, I do not think they can be used to support qualifying for an article, especially in this field. I have written some additional advice in this area at WP:ORGAWARDS. Although I could be wrong, I glanced at your contributions and it gave me the impression that you may be affiliated with this firm, in which case Wikipedia's Terms of Use (and the FTC's astroturfing laws cited in the TOU) requires a disclosure of your financial connection. If this doesn't apply to you, than please just ignore me. Just a heads up. CorporateM (Talk) 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What CorporateM said. Trade publications are OK, but the coverage has to be pretty substantial; more so for publications with smaller audiences.  Awards with no additional coverage beyond "X won Y" do not establish any notability at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (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.