Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walek & 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. Can be editorially redirected as soon as there's something to redirect to.  Sandstein  11:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Walek & Associates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A PR firm of only 19 employees. It has been acquired by Peppercomm, which is the focus of available sources and can be reported on the Peppercomm page. Rankings, awards and lists do not make a PR firm notable, as the PR industry has a very large volume of these. CorporateM (Talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with the article being turned into a Redirect to Draft:Peppercomm, which seems more notable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough secondary sources to be worth a Wikipedia entry.-- TMD   Talk Page.  01:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect (changed from "Keep"). Keep the material, but move/merge to WalekPeppercomm (currently a redlink), leaving a redirect behind.  There is no Peppercomm (currently a redlink).  [Update:  Draft Peppercomm article created, and is what I prefer now as redirect target]  The merged firm and/or both predecessor firms seem notable.  One article can cover merged firm and be redirect target for previous firm names.  CorporateM's deletion nomination seems to suggest that they assume Peppercomm to be notable.  Resolved by Keeping/moving this to WalekPeppercomm.  Note there are awards, e.g. this press release one that announces WalekPeppercomm to be 2014's best PR firm for hedge funds.  For notability of combined topic, check also:
 * -- do ncr  am  22:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And I find there are many misspellings of Peppercomm as "Peppercom" (e.g. 3 correct vs. 23 incorrect in a non-free national newspapers database), so try also:
 * -- do ncr  am  00:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Although Peppercomm has only about 100 employees, a quick search in PRWeek suggests there is enough source material, including a 2014 Agency Business Report. I have used these "Business Reports" from PRWeek for other agency articles and they have been the kind of comprehensive source that is useful in building the encyclopedia. I don't think it should effect this deletion discussion (it's generally a bad idea to paste an article about Walek and rename it Peppercomm), but I would encourage someone to start a page on Peppercomm separate from this discussion. I would not be comfortable starting it myself for reasons I won't get into, but they seem to have enough source material for an article. CorporateM (Talk) 23:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * -- do ncr  am  00:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Although Peppercomm has only about 100 employees, a quick search in PRWeek suggests there is enough source material, including a 2014 Agency Business Report. I have used these "Business Reports" from PRWeek for other agency articles and they have been the kind of comprehensive source that is useful in building the encyclopedia. I don't think it should effect this deletion discussion (it's generally a bad idea to paste an article about Walek and rename it Peppercomm), but I would encourage someone to start a page on Peppercomm separate from this discussion. I would not be comfortable starting it myself for reasons I won't get into, but they seem to have enough source material for an article. CorporateM (Talk) 23:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Although Peppercomm has only about 100 employees, a quick search in PRWeek suggests there is enough source material, including a 2014 Agency Business Report. I have used these "Business Reports" from PRWeek for other agency articles and they have been the kind of comprehensive source that is useful in building the encyclopedia. I don't think it should effect this deletion discussion (it's generally a bad idea to paste an article about Walek and rename it Peppercomm), but I would encourage someone to start a page on Peppercomm separate from this discussion. I would not be comfortable starting it myself for reasons I won't get into, but they seem to have enough source material for an article. CorporateM (Talk) 23:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, per suggestion I have started Peppercomm article, currently at Draft:Peppercomm and submitted to appear in mainspace. I can't move it myself, it requires another editor to move it to mainspace, but has been submitted and will appear in mainspace by regular Articles For Creation process.  I see in the good "business report" source that the WalekPeppercomm entity is just a sub-entity of Peppercomm, which continues, so I agree with CorporateM that creating the Peppercomm article separately is best.  But the Peppercomm article can serve as proper redirect target for Walek & Associates [update: and also for WalekPeppercomm].  I've included Walek & Associates in bold in the Peppercomm article and otherwise edited it to be a proper redirect target [update: though i see the bolding was removed by another editor, fine, no problem either way].  So I think it is now reasonable for this AFD to be concluded with "Redirect" decision, where the redirect target is the Peppercomm article when that article is in mainspace.  The closer could make the move into mainspace, or could close with the redirect decision to be implemented when Peppercomm goes to mainspace.  A redirect decision is superior to a simple Delete because it preserves the edit history and conforms to Wikipedia's promise to credit contributors per our copyright system.  And it allows for acccess to the past info and it allows re-creation of an article if/when there are more substantial sources.  -- do  ncr  am  04:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's conceivable that the WalekPeppercomm unit, which is located separately in office in Boulder, Colorado, could get spun off and go back to Walek & Associates or similar name. And be notable on its own.  Probably not, but still better to have the redirect keeping edit history, IMHO. -- do  ncr  am  21:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. FYI - I made some copyedits, etc. to your draft. I noticed citation 3 is a self-authored piece, but left it alone. CorporateM (Talk) 08:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Happily also editor User:Sarahj2107 agrees this is a reasonable resolution (thanks).  The draft was quickly rejected by an AFC regular editor, but I've added more and resubmitted it.  I added one more cite on that point, about the agency being Wikipedia-policy-respectful, also a "self-authored"/non-independent source, but I believe it is a true fact.  And I added several more PR Week agency business reports, for 2008, 2009, 2012, because you suggested those are "comprehensive" and relatively well-regarded as RS, though I didn't find one for every year.  I think there's enough there now for the article to be accepted for mainspace, but maybe some more development from the now-linked PR Week sources would help.  Maybe the AFC regular editor is naturally skeptical about PR agency articles which probably often are created by COI editors (not the case here).  Anyhow further improvements and/or moving it to mainspace would be welcomed.  Thanks. -- do  ncr  am  21:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat skeptical as well that a 100-person PR agency would qualify, but at-a-glance it looked like they may have it (someone would need to research more than I did). I try to avoid articles related to fellow members of a trade association I am in, so I didn't bother with it too much. (it is a pretty close-knit community) I noticed stuff like "the firm has an improvisational comedy culture, including a program called "Comedy Experience"" which was cited to a primary source from the company. The quote in paragraph two seems un-encyclopedic. Sam Ford's book is irrelevant to the firm page and there are too many awards (please see WP:ORGAWARDS regarding what I feel are proper sources for awards). Also I do not believe the self-authored pieces should be used. Waggener Edstrom Communications is a small(ish) PR firm page I brought up to GA status and may be a good example to follow. Not trying to beat you up for volunteering your time, but my suggestion would be that less is more. CorporateM (Talk) 00:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To CorporateM, your feedback about the editing is fine. I rather agree with you, less would be more, and what I put in could well be edited down.  About the improv comedy culture, that is weak-ish and sort of synthesis-like, by me, putting together what I saw in several video links and interviews and other sources that are all probably directly from, or closely derivative to, the subject company or its people.  The improv comedy slant should indeed be edited down;  it would be far better to have an external source describing the improv comedy as a characteristic of the firm, and i did not find such an external source.  It was me trying to make the article interesting and to verbalize what I was finding;  it is fine by me if another editor ruthlessly edits that down.  Or even better if someone finds better support for what i was trying.  But there are multiple primary-type sources mentioning improv comedy connection, and some representation of that should be kept in the article, though maybe not in the lede.  And yes the Sam Ford co-authored book also is weakish.  It's relevance needs to be supported or it should be dropped.  Thanks for your feedback. -- do  ncr  am  22:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Move to more appropriate article name. There appears to be enough available under all the relevant company names to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, a cross-namespace redirect to a draft is inappropriate, I feel the article should be deleted and a redirect only created if and when Peppercomm becomes a blue link. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete: If Peppercomm can't make notability, then neither should an entity which it now owns.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2015 (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.