Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Fifteen 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 No Consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been speedy deleted twice as a blatant ad and has had a PROD tag added to it, which was removed. User:Timdyson appears to have a Conflict of interest in this subject, as he is listed as the company's CEO. There appears to be nothing notable about this company. Corvus cornix 00:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whatever this once was, its not a blatant Advert in its current form. I'll pitch in my opinion on notability after a little research.--CastAStone|(talk) 00:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an advert, but there is no notability currently. We have a link to the London Stock Exchange for the cmopany ticker, but that doesn't prove notability, only that it exists. --Dennisthe2 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- ...doh! --Dennisthe2 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewed article in current state, now passes WP:CORP, but just so. Change vote to Keep accordingly. Please find some more resources. Have a nice day. --Dennisthe2 23:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to say it, but I'm having a hard time with this one here. They feel a little like Beatrice Foods. My !vote stands for now. --Dennisthe2 01:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Whatever PR they've been doing seems to be working. Deservedly or not, they've gotten sufficient coverage to meet the notability requirement of WP:CORP. --Shirahadasha 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Look under "significance". One sentence is unsupported, the other asserts that its subsidiaries are recognized. I would expect the parent company of several supposedly notable PR firms to have more coverage in the mainstream press. This company is simply not notable. -- Butseriouslyfolks 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this passes WP:CORP - the credentials are solid enough - the market cap is 47.17M, and clicking around a bit on the competitors on Google Finance, I found that most of the news posts were either related to the stock (financial filings and such), or simple blurbs along the lines of "X picked up the Y account". Ironically, it seems that the really good PR firms are good at keeping themselves out of the news. :) If you take all the subsidaries and merge them to this article - it would have more meat and would feel less like an advert. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 05:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for notability. Philippe Beaudette 05:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:N. Salt if needed. /Blaxthos 07:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would have thought that any company listed on the AIM is notable enough for Wikipedia. Dave 10:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep being traded on a particular market is not enough under WP:CORP, but the citations to the Daily Telegraph articles appear to be enough to satisfy WP:CORP criteria 1. JCO312 15:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is notable and is for a world-wide company. Definitely one to keep.Tellyaddict 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This one is a hard one. Though it looks like a fairly decent-sized company, the article's majority of edits come from what appears to be the ceo of the company. That is definitely a conflict of interest. Also, not much outside verification outside of the company website. It may be possible to have an article like this, but it needs more sources and the CEO absolutely needs to recuse himself from editing it. Fundamentaldan 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Fundamentaldan --IRelayer 23:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COI is nota reason for deletion. The only things to look at are coverage, and it appears this company has enough to warrant keeping it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and find more sources, I know there are some out there. I take a look as well. If none are found after research is complete, then delete. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 08:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, to quote another user: "I think this passes WP:CORP"! Mathmo Talk 11:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete According to the article, the company has existed since 1981. If they were notable, 25 years is long enough for them to have become well-known.-MsHyde 08:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.