Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landis Communications, Inc. (LCI)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Landis Communications, Inc. (LCI)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear vanity page written about the 113th largest independent PR agency. Not of any particular historical significance, despite having 30+ citations to awards, articles that do not mention the firm, YouTube videos, etc. It should be noted that in the PR industry, there are a much larger volume of awards than in other markets; every PR agency has dozens of them. CorporateM (Talk) 16:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly promotional. BenLinus1214 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to who accepted this at AfC.  Undecided on notability at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I am neutral. If i made a mistake then I made a mistake, of not, then not. I've reviewed quite a few, and some wrong decisions can happen. Fiddle   Faddle  22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep As I wrote on the David Landis (public relations executive) “Articles for deletion” page, I believe the Landis Communications, Inc. (LCI) article also qualifies for publication: I hope that CorporateM and other interested parties will work toward creating better LCI and David Landis articles, rather than summarily deleting them. At the very least, I wish to have an opportunity to further research and address concerns mentioned by those who would delete these articles. Thank you. Sfntv94 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)User:Sfntv94
 * LCI’s national ranking (#113 per CorporateM’s linked reference), among ALL PR firms, not just “independent” (per CorporateM) PR firms, is notable. According to the PR industry research firm IBISWorld, more than 30,000 PR entities operate in the U.S., which places LCI’s ranking in the top 1 percent.
 * LCI and its founder and president, David Landis, led numerous notable launch PR initiatives for large brands including Match.com and Old Navy retail stores. Many of LCI’s achievements pre-date or occurred during the nascent years of the Internet and linkable references are scant. Hence, verification of LCI’s early achievements must be considered as the sum of parts, rather than a single, convenient and recent linkable reference. In addition, Match.com and Old Navy were new, unfamiliar brands at the time LCI directed their launch PR activities. History does not often record PR launch activities surrounding startups, in part because most new companies (particularly SF Bay Area startups during the mid-1990s dot-com era) fail within a few years. In retrospect, LCI’s innovative PR strategies for Match.com, Old Navy and other brands that are today household names (and which have Wikipedia pages) are significant and noteworthy.
 * LCI is regionally notable for its philanthropic activities and support of non-profit organizations.
 * CorporateM comments that all of the references in the article are unacceptable, but in fact they all support statements in the articles.
 * Notably, LCI is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, continuously-owned independent PR firm in San Francisco. It is likely the oldest LGBT-owned PR agency in the city if not the entire U.S.
 * The LCI article is not a “vanity page.” It details substantiated notable events in the company’s long history. Hence the “vanity” interpretation is subjective. In the course of researching the article, I found no scandals, criticism or controversy pertaining to LCI. If I had discovered such information I would have included it in the article.
 * I hold CorporateM’s comment that “awards are especially abundant” in the PR field to the same verifiability standards that s/he applies to the LCI and David Landis articles. What is her or his source for this claim? This is another subjective assertion. Awards programs for exceptional individual and organizational achievement are commonplace across all industries. If CorporateM and others wish to cleanse Wikipedia of articles that include “Awards and recognition,” they will have their hands full for the next several millennia.


 * Thanks for your comments @Sfntv94. I see that the LCI and David Landis articles have been a significant focus of your contributions to Wikipedia and wanted to give you a heads up that if you work at LCI, you should really disclose a potential conflict of interest in this discussion. A couple links for additional information can be found here and at WP:COI. If this doesn't apply to you, then naturally just ignore me. CorporateM (Talk) 22:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak delete The article makes large claims, but the references by and large don't back them up. For example there is much talk about an AIDS documentary that won awards, but none of the coverage about that documentary confirms a role for Landis. Awards are not significant. All in all I think it fails WP:CORP. Not surprising: public relations firms are in the business of getting coverage for their clients, not for themselves. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete 113th largest in the US is not notable, probably #1, 2, and 3 would be--I'm not sure how far down we should go, but certainly not below 20. To put size in perspective, #1 in O'Dwyer (ref 13 in the article) bills $734 million--this firm bills 0.2% as much; #1 has 5,000 staff--this firm has 10. I find it hard to imagine how a firm that size in any industry whatsoever can possibly be notable.    Oldest in SF might conceivably by a weak claim to notability; one of the oldest is not in the same category.  The awards for this particular agency are exceptionally trivial: I see no evidence that a Bulldog Report award gives any particular distinction.  "One of the top" is apparently the rating 113th by size (now possible 112th).  Nothing else in the article even comes near that. Notability of a firm is not inherit by having a few notable clients, or essentially every firm would be notable. There is not even a claim in the article they are the major agency for any of the companies--but if they were, it would still make them no more notable that that company's PR division.  DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 27 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.