Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freud 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. Nominator withdrawn based on improved references. Non-admin closure. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Freud Communications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability criteria. Article used for advertising and promotion. It is little more than a list of clients. Rushton2010 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator: Over the last few days the article has been substantially improved and all the issues, I believe, have been addressed so that deletion is no longer needed. Rushton2010 (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think this PR company is a very well known and is notable in UK PR/Media circles and although the article clearly, in my view, could do with some work and needs proper sourcing clicking on Google news  provides many reliable sources. The noted employers and clients are part of what drives its notability. Such articles are difficult to get right I think but I don't think deletion is needed. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)) PS: Guidelines usefull here might be Notability (organizations and companies) and Notability.Msrasnw (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)PPS: The company is a large one - with a turnover of around £40million/year and a staff of 200+ - and is ranked by PR Week in their ranking system as 6th in the UK . I am not sure if, or how, turnover and size contribute to notability but they would seem to me to have some possible role so long as it is verifiable and reliably sourced.
 * PS: Have added a note on PRWeek story about them editing wikipedia on behalf of their clients. I don't know if this adds to the desirablity or otherwises of keeping this article. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC))
 * PS: I have added some more refs on its history and on their edit "things" for their clients. The Refs are from the Times. The most recent ref I could find refers to it as Freud Communications, the PR behemoth but I am not sure if this should be added. (Whittell, Giles The Times December 11, Tuesday pg. 4,5) (Msrasnw (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.


 * Comment Could merge with Matthew Freud in preference to deletion: its actions are closely linked to that of its high-profile founder, so it's unlikely there will be much press coverage that doesn't mention Freud. However, keeping is also possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect and limited merge per Colapeninsula. This business is majority owned by another PR business.  The bulk of the article text consists of a client lists.  Nothing in the article text suggests that this business, all by itself, has had the sort of lasting effects on its industry or anything else that would make it worthy of memory in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and limited merge. There is very little to the article about the actual business with the exception of a list of clients. The business does not appear to be notable by itself but I agree with Colapeninsula and Smerdis: the best course would be to merge the relevant non promotional sections to the page of the founder and then delete the page.Rushton2010 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has been partially improved over the last few days. The notability issue seems to hang off the fact that in 2011 it was rated the 6th best PR company in the UK by PR Weekly. There are still issues with neutral tone and all told, there doesn't seem to be a lot to say about the company itself. I would therefore reaffirm Merge and Delete. It would be more appropriate as an in-depth paragraph or two on the Founder's page than as a stub article with questions of notability hanging over it's head. Rushton2010 (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep 8th largest in a major company in a major line of business is notable by any reasonable standard. I have tried to delete a good number of articles on firms in this industry, usually with success; this is above the bar in terms of importance. It may be owned by another company, but its operated independently. Atthe very lkeast, it can of course be merged with the founder.  DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 24 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.