Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paratus 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. Consensus is that the coverage found which mentions the company is insufficient to satisfy the general notability guideline. Michig (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Paratus Communications

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. (Has the usual industry awards they all have.) Philafrenzy (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Weak Keep - Topic meets appears to just meet WP:GNG:
 * Williams, Christopher (June 19, 2007). "Goodbye ICSTIS, hello PhonePayPlus: Rebrand to beat off premium rate rip-off merchants." The Register.
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Williams, Christopher (June 19, 2007). "Goodbye ICSTIS, hello PhonePayPlus: Rebrand to beat off premium rate rip-off merchants." The Register.
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Williams, Christopher (June 19, 2007). "Goodbye ICSTIS, hello PhonePayPlus: Rebrand to beat off premium rate rip-off merchants." The Register.
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 20:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Sources added do not come close to significant coverage of the firm. Fails WP:GNG. Mt  king  (edits)  21:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The first one you found does count as significant coverage. The second one says of them "Paratus is perhaps the best example of the near-instant impact these fledgling companies can have on the industry" and whatnot which I believe counts to their notability.  The other links, I don't really see as much to them, but the first two are all that matters here anyway.   D r e a m Focus  00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment A lot of work has gone into beefing-up this article but it still doesn't make the grade. All we really have here is a lot of PR puffery and inherited notability. I still don't see why the firm itself is notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An assertion of significance is that they created the concept of 'bespoke communications'. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 14:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. A public relations and social media agency, and I shouldn't have to say more.  Marketing Week and Marketing Magazine aren't the kind of sources that can really establish significant effects outside the advertising business.  The Marketing Week article simply quotes personnel from this business in an unrelated story, and the Marketing Magazine article is a Top 100 list that doesn't make each business listed notable.  The kind of business that just shouldn't have a standalone article.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Over thirty edits have been made in an attempt to "rescue" this article but it still doesn't show notability with poor quality tangential coverage, inherited notability and nominations rather than wins for awards which themselves are trivial. You can put lipstick on a pig... Philafrenzy (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the article is puffed up to look nice, but coverage is miniscule. Definitely not significant coverage in reliable sources, more like passing mentions and barebones summaries by anonymous authors.  Them From  Space  02:02, 26 January 2012 (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.