Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spector & Associates


 * 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. Juliancolton (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Spector & Associates

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No inherent notability per WP:Corp - any attempts to tag the article in respect to this have been reverted. Created and edited primarily by Single Purpose Accounts with an apparent Conflict of Interest Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There have been several third-party sources added to the article which speak to its notability. Wikichound (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No they don't;
 * Self Published sources


 * 1) Spector Homepage
 * 2) Naipra.org - If not controlled by Spector & Associates (as founders) - still asserts no notability toward Spector & Associates
 * 3) PR Museum - Possible reliable source if it can be sourced to the Magazine and not just Spector & Associates Website
 * 4) Spector Homepage
 * 5) PR Museum
 * Marketing Material


 * 1) O'Dwyer's PR
 * Primary Sources about awards - Assert no Notability


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * Actual Reliable Third Party Sources


 * 1) Julia Hood, PRWeek
 * 2) Stateman, Alison. "In the PR museum." Public Relations Tactics 5.1 (1998): 3. Business Source Premier. EBSCO. Web. 14 Mar. 2011. -No Obvious Archive Copy for WP:V
 * Not actually about Spector & Associates


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * That's still the same two sources Hood, and Stateman that actually comply with establishing any sort of notability and it's still not enough. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Company websites are suitable for establishing irrefutable information such as office location. I would direct you toward either the PepsiCo or General Electric Wikipedia entries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric

2. See point one.

3. This should be referenced by Wikipedia standards: Citations for newspaper articles typically include: * name of the newspaper in italics * date of publication * byline (author's name), if any * title of the article within quotation marks * city of publication, if not included in name of newspaper * page number(s) are optional

Awards do indeed assert notability. Awards represent industry recognition. This doesn't seem like a difficult proposition.

10 & 11 pertain to the company's association with industry leaders. The actual reference is for a claim of Edward Bernays and his being the inspiration for the firm's founding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Neither reference is intended to assert to Spector directly, rather speak to their role in the public relations industry. Again, I don't see an issue with this. Stuxnet10 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue with this is while these sources assert that *some* facts about the company are Verifiable they do not assert that the subject of the article is Notable; specifically for any corporation, we abide by the guideline for the [[WP:CORP|

notability of organizations and companies]] that Guideline requires that corporations are "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." That Rules out all of the Self-Published Sources as non-independent non-secondary. Awards can be considered notable in relation to some articles, but they have separate notability guidelines - The Corporate notability Guideline does not consider awards so this means that this reference constitues a Trivial coverage of a subject by a secondary source and is not sufficient to establish notability. If a third part writes a book or article about the notability of Spector and Associates based on their winning this award - As Google Books shows me exists for other PR companies - then that source would assert notability because of the award win. Without any evidence that "Reputation Management Magazine" and "Public Relations Tactics" are reliable sources and without access to these sources it may be difficult for other editors to confirm that the material is either verifiable or asserts notability. However these are really asides because coverage of Spector & Associates in reliable independent sources is not obviously 'significant. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another public relations business that wants a Wikipedia article for public relations purposes.  Text is unambiguous advertising: known for brand-building strategies for business-to-business companies.  Only claims to fame are minor trade awards.  References are to minor trade magazines or websites. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Have struck through comments by Wikichound now indef blocked as corporate publicity account. Stuxnet10 has no edits outwith this AfD and the subject article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've blanked the triumphant and spammy "Client List" section (incidentally undocumented by outside sources). I appreciate that this is a PR company engaging in PR about itself, which is unfortunate. However, the list of awards seem compelling as to the firm's significance in its field. Needs some rewriting to knock the self-written tone down three pegs, but still over the notability bar, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep major clients is a relevant factor of notability  and so are awards. PRweek's editorial coverage of the PR industry is a reliable source. We do not have to prove from sources that winning awards is notable, bold face type or no bold face. Important awards prove notabilit, by showing directly that outsiders consider it notable y. The GNG is another way, but not the only way.    DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The list of Awards are awards that clients won whilst Spector was working for them - without sources to say how much or little Spector's contribution led to these awards it's difficult to take the seriously as any measure of the notability of Spector it's self. The only award that immediately speaks to Spector is the Silver Anvil and even it is shared with the client and isn't the PRSA's highest award. Many small companies supply services or Products to larger multinationals and I don't see policy anywhere that this makes them notable. If it was not a PR company but say a Catering company that provided sandwiches to these multinationals whilst they won awards - and equally won some award from "Catering Society of America" would we even be considering them notable? I look to Ihcoyc's essay on corporate notability User:Ihcoyc/Business and have to consider that this should be considered for promotion as a guideline to weed out non notable corporations like this. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * look more carefully,. The awards are awards given to the company for their PR campaigns for the listed customers. Some of the awards are given by PR trade organizations, not organizations in the customers trade, or general business organizations.   DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the awards are given to the campaign itself even those given by PR Trade organisations - that means they are shared with the client and we have no way to tell how much or little was contributed by Spector and how much was contributed by any in-house PR team (in fact googling some of these "awards" return hits on individuals claiming they personally won them - including Shelley Spector's linkedin page). Worryingly I can't see any sources for these awards other than the self-published Spector claims. Essentially we still only have 1 reliable source the Julia Hood one which appears in a trade magazine and is behind a paywall. Does this source establish Spector as notable? I can't tell because I can't read it but I do know that PRWeek has been cited as a reason to keep in 5 other Afd's about people/firms and has been rejected; in a further 3 Afd's it has been cited along with other sources and they ended on no-consensus; only one article closed on keep and it was supported by an NYT article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, this is a PR company, but this is no worse than other corporate wikipedia pages. A consistency needs to be applied across wikipedia, and I'm sorry, Mr. Jamieson, but your comments are pedantic and poorly researched. Silver Anvils are an industry standard award that exclusively recognize campaigns developed on behalf of clients. Hence the shared recognition. I'm not entirely sure how a client-based company would create a campaign without the shared input of a client. I suggest you research this further before making declaratory statements. I would also suggest that before vilifying company principals such as the president of the company you stop to think whether your comments are appropriate. You'll also notice that the self-published sources you mentioned are actually reprints of third party sources. It would seem to me that your efforts would best spent elsewhere, though the wikipedia community thanks you for your earnest efforts. Wikifitz1 (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - Wikifitz1 has no edits outside this AfD. Dru of Id (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly how many Sockpuppets do we need to try and push this Article through? Firstly other stuff exists and claiming that this is "no worse than other corporate wikipedia pages." does not excuse the existence of this one. Secondly Mr. Jamieson was my late father I answer to Stuart. Thirdly, I'm not sure how my comments can be both pedantic and poorly researched as one suggests showing off a knowledge of the industry and the other suggests a lack of knowledge of the industry. In my personal experience - an associate of mine worked in PR/marketing for a major brand and in 1972 developed a campaign that not only made his brand the leading one but set the direction of the whole sector. He was brand manager there until the mid 80s and then moved on to an even more iconic multinational brand. Since then the brand has contracted out the work to P.R. firms of equal size and status to Spector; but the campaigns are 80% based on the work that this individual did for the brand directly in 1972 and the brand deserves to take credit for that. These campaigns have won awards equivalent to the Silver Anvil in Europe such as ISP Gold and Silver awards so they are directly comparable - without sources a reader can be misled into believing a campaign is 80% the work or the PR/marketing company when in reality it is the work of the Brand - It's not asking too much to request that these claims be sourced. Also I didn't vilify anyone, Shelley Spector's own linkedin page lists the Anvils as awards she has personally achieved rather than as awards the company has achieved. I claimed this appeared to be a common trait among all PR people no more, no less - certainly not vilifying anyone. The Self-Published sourced *may* be reprints but without access to the originals we cannot verify that they say or mean the same thing; in an industry that works around positive spin it may not seem important, but in a fact based encyclopedia it is essential. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr. Jamieson, please refrain from name calling, it cheapens the wikipedia experience for everyone. I would suggest that if you can't control yourself that perhaps you find a hobby that's less stressful than the obviously hectic world of wikipedia editing. Also, pedantic and poorly researched are not mutually exclusive terms:

1. Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning. 2. Being showy of one’s knowledge, often in a boring manner. 3. Being finicky or fastidious with language. While I'm truly happy that you had a friend, who, in 1972 happened to work in marketing, I fail to see relevance to your argument. Maybe you could ask for his advice on the matter? I'm not sure what this means: "Since then the brand has contracted out the work to P.R. firms of equal size and status to Spector; but the campaigns are 80% based on the work that this individual did for the brand directly in 1972 and the brand deserves to take credit for that." Spector created a campaign for a client, they won an award. Seems simple enough to me. Finally, as Shelley Spector was the lead on theses campaigns, created by her firm, she seems to have earned the right to list them on her LinkedIn page. Though I still think that it's odd that you've gone to the effort of searching her on a completely unconnected website and then mentioned her by name. If nothing else this just seems inappropriate. I again thank you for your diligence and wish you the best. Wikifitz1 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not name calling; sockpuppet is a technical term here on Wikipedia for users that either use multiple accounts to make multiple points on discussions such as this under different names. The fact you have no other edits here makes you firstly Single Purpose Account, exactly like user:wikichound and user:Stuxnet10 and highly likely to be either the same person as or a colleague/friend of the other accounts. Both are different types of puppetry but neither is acceptable on wikipedia. Of course if you wish we could take this to an investigation and ask them to work out what is going on here? However aside from your disagreement on the meaning of pedantic, The relevance of my argument is this the awards do not show whether as you say "Spector created a campaign for a client, they won an award." or whether as in my friend's situation "The client created a campaign, and was assisted in deploying it by the PR firm - The client won an Award for the campaign." both are very different scenarios and without reliable secondary sources detailing why the *campaign* winning this award win makes *Spector* notable, then a list of awards is worth little in terms of notability and in reason for keeping this article. Finally I didn't go searching for Shelly Spector's linkedin page, I did a google search for the name of the award and Shelly's page was returned on the first page of hits - other than one hit to the awarding body (which only described the award in general) all of the remaining hits were to the CV's of people who had worked in various PR firms (and several in the same PR firm on the same campaign) all took full credit for the award and the respective campaigns on their CV's - which is exactly my point in raising this anyone can claim to be responsible for winning anything this is why we need reliable third parties to provide suitability on the importance of the award. . Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * delete I have to agree that the sources provided don't stand-up to scrutiny and I could not find unmentioned sources to establish WP:GNG. The awards do not seem significant (as in no outside coverage to demonstrate that it is a major award i.e.Public_Relations_Society_of_America all I found of coverage were paid for adverts and unsourced and should probably be AfDed. There is a mention in the current article stating the winning of Arthur Page Award, which would be major but it is not on the official site as them .Tetron76 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 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.