Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westminster Digital


 * 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 keep. ✗ plicit  12:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Westminster Digital

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page is about a PR agency. The page appears to have been created by its founder Craig Dillon (see my discussion on its talk page). I've tried to find independent media coverage of the organisation - the business name complicates this slightly, as there are false positives on articles about Westminster's digital strategies - however, I'm simply not finding anything which would satisfy ORGDEPTH. Coverage is confined to a few mentions in passing, and promo interviews with Dillon. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - as much as I dislike PR companies trying to influence Wikipedia, my inherent skepticism isn't enough to overcome the inherent notability I'm seeing here. The articles in GQ and Wired are both high-quality, in-depth coverage of the organization, not just passing mentions, and the Sky News article also has what I would consider significant coverage, even if the quality is slightly lower. The other sources are mostly passing mentions, but they help establish notability as well given their credibility (BBC, The Times). Not the usual Forbes blogspam or churnalism. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The article should be thoroughly monitored for NPOV and COI violations, though. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The company simply is notable, however it would be good if there is some more critical coverage which could be added to it to make it less promotional in nature. Chagropango (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable per sources. Took me a while to see what relation the blonde fellow in the photo was. Could use a caption. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2022 (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.