Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MWW Group


 * 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. Courcelles 03:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

MWW Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Repeatedly recreated article about another non-notable public relations firm. Referenced to press release based stories about petty trade awards, routine mergers and spinoffs, and industry size rankings, none of which are genuinely independent sources, and none of which demonstrate significant effects on history, culture, or the development of the field. Since they apparently really really want a Wikipedia article, I assume the sources present are the best ones out there, and they are not significant enough coverage. I am not finding anything better myself. Recommend protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.

Delete and salt per nom and my previous PROD on the article.--v/r - TP 19:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment First of all, I'm the primary author of the article. I am in no way affiliated with the company, except insofar as I was e-mailed by an employee as a friend of a friend, and that employee asked me to for some advice. Second, the sources cited are probably not the best ones out there, despite the organisation's desire for a Wikipedia article. I spent at most an hour searching Google for what I could find, decided it was more than enough, and left it at that. I'm sure more could be found. More importantly, I'm curious as to why the sources already cited are judged to be A) not genuinely independent and B) not significant enough. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Source #1, #3, and #5 are press releases. #2 has no editorial oversight. It's written by one person and published by him.  #4 is a mere mention.  #6 also has no editorial oversight and is self published.  #7 is the only source that is independent of the subject, significant, and a reliable source.  Thus failing WP:GNG which requires multiple, not one.--v/r - TP 22:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, TP. I'd add that the sources don't really say much.  Being acquired and spun off, winning an award from a trade association, and participating in publicity campaigns for people and products don't go very far to make any public relations business notable.  Particularly, being associated with campaigns for notable products or institutions does not confer notability by contagion on a public relations firm: it's sort of what we'd expect any firm in that sort of business to do.  (Trade awards seem to proliferate; unless it's something well known at the level of a Michelin Guide, I don't think they count as very significant coverage.)  Announcements that campaigns have been launched, mergers, or spinoffs, aren't the kind of deep coverage we're after. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of other third-party sources. Both a Yahoo! and a Google search didn't retrieve any notable mentions aside from money mentions, i.e. PRNewswire, Yahoo! Money, etc. SwisterTwister   talk  05:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Article shows no evidence of notability justifying its being on Wikipedia.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 00:57, 7 August 2011 (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.