Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fenton 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Fenton Communications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's possible a proper article could be made, but there was nothing to salvage from the current page after the coatrack and primary sources were removed. CorporateM (Talk) 04:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment All I had been finding was routine staff announcements and had been tending to a WP:CORPDEPTH fail, until I reached the Washington Post article, now included as a reference. Arguably, the work in various campaigns is WP:NOTINHERITED but the fact that the Washington Post article itself cites a Fox News commentator on the company begins to suggest a more solid basis and that perhaps this could become a durable article subject. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we'll have to find better sources. I can say that in the non-profit and liberal causes world, Fenton is very famous, but it's hard to find sources about a PR company, because they intend to generally stay out of the press in favor of promoting their clients. Steven Walling &bull; talk   09:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Steven Walling I actually have the opposite experience. Many PR companies are very aggressive about promoting themselves, because clients see the PR work the agency does for itself as a case study. It's sort of a circular thing. However, I generally don't buy into the argument of "PR-influenced sources" that are somehow disqualified because they are not "organic". Companies that do good PR will generate more sources for us to use. If Fenton does aggressive PR for themselves and get a lot of media coverage as a result, that's good news for anyone who takes an interest in their article. CorporateM (Talk) 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, as a general rule, I highly frown on people who strip out most of a page's content before nominating it for deletion. If you want to discuss deleting a problematic page, then I think you ought to let people see the problems and what they have to work with, and not simply truncate the page first.  The prior version certainly had issues and had been the subject of SPA editing, but some of that content might be made into something useful.  Hell, even the original 2006 version had more content than what  left there before nominating this.  Bad form in my opinion.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I usually don't know if I will nominate the article for deletion, until I've removed the content not suitable for inclusion and see what's left. The 2006 version looks much better and I've reverted to that and re-inserted the sources someone added. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you also withdrawing the AFD nomination, cause you removed it from the article? Dragons flight (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe that the company is notable, and I admit that is partially because I have been familiar with their work for 30 years. I found significant coverage in two books called Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science and Who Will Tell The People: The Betrayal Of American Democracy. Their leading role in the campaign to ban Daminozide (Alar) in the apple industry in the 1980s is still studied and debated today.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:, , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 18:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Now that the article has proper sources, it seems it should be kept. I did not intend to use AfD for cleanup, but rather was going through dozens of promotional articles and many of them would have been an improvement to Wikipedia if they were removed. Naturally, it's even better if editors take an interest in improving them. CorporateM (Talk) 18:25, 18 November 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.