Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hoffman Agency


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hoffman Agency

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Spammily written article that was un-PRODded by a bot like user who contests dozens of PRODs daily. I read the listed external links as if they were attempting to be reliable sources. Only one is not a primary source or blog. That one link is to inc.com. That link is a single sentence setting up a quotation from one of their employees. One sentence does not meet our criteria for Notability, multiple references to multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Miami33139 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete Spammy article with no independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete PR releases do not count towards notability, even for PR firms. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple stories in reliable sources about this company. E.g. ] JulesH (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional coverage of some their awards:  JulesH (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Doesn't read like WP:ADVERT and company seems notable.  LotLE × talk  22:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Company appears to be notable, and any spam can be removed. We don';t delete when we can edit. DGG (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per JulesH and DGG. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete "Appears" is not enough. What exactly will be left to edit when the spam is removed? If an AfD discussion fails to provide the external sources needed to prove notability, then what will? So, if "we don't delete when we can edit", then by all means edit to provide the information and the sources that turn "appears" into "is", or show that vanity industry reports and personal quotes are enough to keep this article. Flowanda | Talk 08:15, 24 February 2009 (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.