Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierce Mattie Public Relations


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Pierce Mattie Public Relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Advert for company. Lacks significant independent coverage of Pierce Mattie Public Relations. Falls short of the Depth of coverage needed and sources fall short of the Audience part of WP:ORG's Primary criteria. Notability is not inherited from it's clients. Below is a look at current sourcing.
 * 1 listing
 * 2 by them
 * 3 dead link
 * 4 claim is not in source, currently just a listing for companies that are in the source.
 * 5 not about Pierce Mattie
 * 6 by them
 * 7 listing only
 * 8 linkedin
 * 9 blog where they talk about themselves that lacks independent coverage
 * 10 press release
 * 11 listing
 * 12 not about Pierce Mattie
 * 13 not a reliable source
 * 14 pr blog
 * 15 not a reliable source where they talk about themselves that lacks independent coverage
 * 16 claim is not in source. no coverage about Pierce Mattie
 * 17 press release
 * 18 press release
 * 19 press release
 * 20 short routine announcement
 * 21 press release

I found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I went through all of the sources in the article, and I agree with Duffbeerforme's interpretations of them - none of them pass our guidelines on identifying reliable sources. I couldn't find any reliable sources online either, so I can only conclude that this company fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom and Mr. Stradivarius  -- Dewritech (talk)  15:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost a G11 speedy--a long list of non-notable clients is not material for an encyclopedia. As for notability, it's time we started considering claims like  "One of the Fastest Growing Companies in America" to be an indication of NOTYETNOTABLE. We regard such "awards" as probable evidence of non-notability for people, and it would be appropriate for companies also. In theory, notability and promotionalism are separate factors, but the coincidence of borderline notability and borderline spam should mean delete--they so often go together. I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to a well written article with borderline notability, and I'm certainly prepared to rewrite if necessary to get a proper article for something clearly notable, but if both are dubious, it simply isn't worth the effort of an attempted rescue. There are too many actually important subjects where we need articles.  DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 11 June 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.