Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witeck Communications


 * 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. Nobody except for one editor believes this isn't non-notable and mere advertising.  Sandstein  18:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Witeck Communications

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's a puff piece sourced entirely (and without verifiable links) by the company's own research, website, publications and PR. A search has returned just this article, social media, the amazon page for their book, and a passing quote from Witeck which does not reach WP:SIGCOV. That, and the involvement of COI editors (including Witeck) show this for the spam it is. It fails WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a likely keep, nom may have overlooked “Witeck-Combs Communications” while doing their WP:Before due diligence. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you mean, ? I saw it. The most promising link returned on a search of the old name was enacademic.com which turns out to be a copy of Wikipedia's article. This subject lacks reliable, verifiable, independent sources under both names. Cabayi (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete It's obviously blatant advertising and not neutral. To the point that I'd almost say its speedy delete worthy. For instance see the research section. If the advert and none neutral stuff is cleaned up there won't enough of it left to warrant the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It may have been a bit of a challenge but I found some sources that can help meet GNG. Some are possibly from different editions of the same book, but I think there is indeed enough to develop a good article:
 * This list of a dozen or so Awards and recognition over the years could be sourced and added
 * In 2010, Witeck was a finalist for the Trailblazer Award by Out & Equal Workplace Advocates – a national organization that champions safe and equitable workplaces for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.
 * In 2009, Witeck was named one of 20 outstanding openly gay Virginians by Equality Virginia, the state’s LGBT civil rights group.
 * 2006 National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce Wells Fargo LGBT Business Owner of the Year Award: Bob Witeck and Wesley Combs
 * Instinct Magazine 24 Leading Men for 2006: Bob Witeck and Wesley Combs
 * 2004 Potomac Executive Network’s Business Leaders of the Year: Bob Witeck and Wesley Combs
 * 2004 Association of National Advertisers Multicultural Marketing Award: Volvo/Witeck-Combs Communications
 * 2004 Advertising Research Foundation’s David Ogilvy Award finalist: Witeck-Combs Communications/Harris Interactive
 * 2003 Out & Equal Trailblazer Award: Wesley Combs
 * 2003 Out Magazine Out 100 list: Bob Witeck and Wesley Combs
 * 2003 American Demographics Magazine’s 25 Most Influential People in the last 25 years in the field of Market Research: Bob Witeck and Wesley Combs
 * 2002 Distinguished Service Award from the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association: Bob Witeck
 * 2001 and 2002 Gay Financial Network’s Most Influential Gay and Lesbian Corporate Executives: Bob Witeck and Wesley Combs


 * There are *a lot* more, apparently Witeck is quite influential in the LGBTQ and Washington DC fields. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've looked at three. One turned out to be a passing reference, the next was headed "PRESS RELEASE: Paid content from ACCESSWIRE", the third was a comment he made about Chick-fil-A, not about Witeck Communications. Some of the others are obviously trade directories. I don't doubt you can find Witeck popping up as a rent-a-quote source for any journalist trying to write copy and hit a deadline, but I've still not seen anything about the business, which is what this article purports to be about. I also won't dispute your claim that there are a lot more, but we need some quality, not just quantity.
 * If any of them support claims of notability then please work them into the article. Cabayi (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve loaded a copy of the article to my sandbox and will work on it. In this process I just came across an industry magazine PR Week with 350(!) articles mentioning just “Witeck-Combs” alone. Some of course, will be just mentions as the firm is a specialist and does research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick question, Gleeanon409: From what source do you suppose that PRWeek gets its material?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s a trade magazine, so I imagine a multitude of sources, as well as their own research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are *a lot* more, apparently Witeck is quite influential in the LGBTQ and Washington DC fields. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've looked at three. One turned out to be a passing reference, the next was headed "PRESS RELEASE: Paid content from ACCESSWIRE", the third was a comment he made about Chick-fil-A, not about Witeck Communications. Some of the others are obviously trade directories. I don't doubt you can find Witeck popping up as a rent-a-quote source for any journalist trying to write copy and hit a deadline, but I've still not seen anything about the business, which is what this article purports to be about. I also won't dispute your claim that there are a lot more, but we need some quality, not just quantity.
 * If any of them support claims of notability then please work them into the article. Cabayi (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve loaded a copy of the article to my sandbox and will work on it. In this process I just came across an industry magazine PR Week with 350(!) articles mentioning just “Witeck-Combs” alone. Some of course, will be just mentions as the firm is a specialist and does research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick question, Gleeanon409: From what source do you suppose that PRWeek gets its material?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s a trade magazine, so I imagine a multitude of sources, as well as their own research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are *a lot* more, apparently Witeck is quite influential in the LGBTQ and Washington DC fields. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've looked at three. One turned out to be a passing reference, the next was headed "PRESS RELEASE: Paid content from ACCESSWIRE", the third was a comment he made about Chick-fil-A, not about Witeck Communications. Some of the others are obviously trade directories. I don't doubt you can find Witeck popping up as a rent-a-quote source for any journalist trying to write copy and hit a deadline, but I've still not seen anything about the business, which is what this article purports to be about. I also won't dispute your claim that there are a lot more, but we need some quality, not just quantity.
 * If any of them support claims of notability then please work them into the article. Cabayi (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve loaded a copy of the article to my sandbox and will work on it. In this process I just came across an industry magazine PR Week with 350(!) articles mentioning just “Witeck-Combs” alone. Some of course, will be just mentions as the firm is a specialist and does research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick question, Gleeanon409: From what source do you suppose that PRWeek gets its material?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s a trade magazine, so I imagine a multitude of sources, as well as their own research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are *a lot* more, apparently Witeck is quite influential in the LGBTQ and Washington DC fields. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've looked at three. One turned out to be a passing reference, the next was headed "PRESS RELEASE: Paid content from ACCESSWIRE", the third was a comment he made about Chick-fil-A, not about Witeck Communications. Some of the others are obviously trade directories. I don't doubt you can find Witeck popping up as a rent-a-quote source for any journalist trying to write copy and hit a deadline, but I've still not seen anything about the business, which is what this article purports to be about. I also won't dispute your claim that there are a lot more, but we need some quality, not just quantity.
 * If any of them support claims of notability then please work them into the article. Cabayi (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve loaded a copy of the article to my sandbox and will work on it. In this process I just came across an industry magazine PR Week with 350(!) articles mentioning just “Witeck-Combs” alone. Some of course, will be just mentions as the firm is a specialist and does research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick question, Gleeanon409: From what source do you suppose that PRWeek gets its material?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s a trade magazine, so I imagine a multitude of sources, as well as their own research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are *a lot* more, apparently Witeck is quite influential in the LGBTQ and Washington DC fields. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've looked at three. One turned out to be a passing reference, the next was headed "PRESS RELEASE: Paid content from ACCESSWIRE", the third was a comment he made about Chick-fil-A, not about Witeck Communications. Some of the others are obviously trade directories. I don't doubt you can find Witeck popping up as a rent-a-quote source for any journalist trying to write copy and hit a deadline, but I've still not seen anything about the business, which is what this article purports to be about. I also won't dispute your claim that there are a lot more, but we need some quality, not just quantity.
 * If any of them support claims of notability then please work them into the article. Cabayi (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve loaded a copy of the article to my sandbox and will work on it. In this process I just came across an industry magazine PR Week with 350(!) articles mentioning just “Witeck-Combs” alone. Some of course, will be just mentions as the firm is a specialist and does research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick question, Gleeanon409: From what source do you suppose that PRWeek gets its material?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s a trade magazine, so I imagine a multitude of sources, as well as their own research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are *a lot* more, apparently Witeck is quite influential in the LGBTQ and Washington DC fields. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've looked at three. One turned out to be a passing reference, the next was headed "PRESS RELEASE: Paid content from ACCESSWIRE", the third was a comment he made about Chick-fil-A, not about Witeck Communications. Some of the others are obviously trade directories. I don't doubt you can find Witeck popping up as a rent-a-quote source for any journalist trying to write copy and hit a deadline, but I've still not seen anything about the business, which is what this article purports to be about. I also won't dispute your claim that there are a lot more, but we need some quality, not just quantity.
 * If any of them support claims of notability then please work them into the article. Cabayi (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve loaded a copy of the article to my sandbox and will work on it. In this process I just came across an industry magazine PR Week with 350(!) articles mentioning just “Witeck-Combs” alone. Some of course, will be just mentions as the firm is a specialist and does research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick question, Gleeanon409: From what source do you suppose that PRWeek gets its material?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s a trade magazine, so I imagine a multitude of sources, as well as their own research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are *a lot* more, apparently Witeck is quite influential in the LGBTQ and Washington DC fields. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've looked at three. One turned out to be a passing reference, the next was headed "PRESS RELEASE: Paid content from ACCESSWIRE", the third was a comment he made about Chick-fil-A, not about Witeck Communications. Some of the others are obviously trade directories. I don't doubt you can find Witeck popping up as a rent-a-quote source for any journalist trying to write copy and hit a deadline, but I've still not seen anything about the business, which is what this article purports to be about. I also won't dispute your claim that there are a lot more, but we need some quality, not just quantity.
 * If any of them support claims of notability then please work them into the article. Cabayi (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve loaded a copy of the article to my sandbox and will work on it. In this process I just came across an industry magazine PR Week with 350(!) articles mentioning just “Witeck-Combs” alone. Some of course, will be just mentions as the firm is a specialist and does research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick question, Gleeanon409: From what source do you suppose that PRWeek gets its material?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s a trade magazine, so I imagine a multitude of sources, as well as their own research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve loaded a copy of the article to my sandbox and will work on it. In this process I just came across an industry magazine PR Week with 350(!) articles mentioning just “Witeck-Combs” alone. Some of course, will be just mentions as the firm is a specialist and does research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick question, Gleeanon409: From what source do you suppose that PRWeek gets its material?--Quisqualis (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s a trade magazine, so I imagine a multitude of sources, as well as their own research. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I’ve reworked the article a bit and added thirty-plus sources. I realize that no amount of sources will satisfy everyone but I think it does show that sources exist and a good article is possible. Usually I systematically go through all the possible sources to use what I can but in this case after a few days I was simple too tired and didn’t get to them all. P.S. Bob Witeck should undoubtedly have his own article as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The first one added, from cleveland.com, mentions some research done by Witeck-Combs Communications in passing in the 16th paragraph. That's not signifcant coverage and shows no discernment in the selection of sources. Are any of the other 29 sources added any better? Cabayi (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t expect to find much in-depth coverage of a Pr firm but there were a few; I consider the more relevant point is that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete It has so much WikiPuffery and so little WP:RS that it isn't worth trying to salvage. Dorama285 21:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If that we’re true it would be a clean up issue, not an AfD issue. I believe the sources are reliable, and that puffed language had been removed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2020 (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.