Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schwartz 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, natch. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schwartz Communications

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. From discussion page appears to contribute some services to Wikipedia Foundation, but no assertion of notability in this regard and given we have been deleting articles on Foundation board members I doubt that is enough reason to have this article. I prodded it, anon removed prod with cryptic comment. Text reads like a standard corporate PR blurb of the sort there is emerging consensus Wikipedia is frowning on. Martinp 09:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Making clear I vote Delete. Martinp 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete. A non-notable blurby stubb. Exactly the sort of thing this foundation memo wants executed on sight. The Pedia will be no poorer for its removal.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Medium-Strength, Slightly Tangy Delete. Why? Because I read http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=A_Commercial_Failure and am all too happy to see Wikipedia's nepotism hoisted by its own lawyer-issued petard.--Perceive 10:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Looked at the link, seems rather yelly and uncompelling to me, like most stuff on that site. Let's judge Schwartz Communications on its own merits as an article. I don't see any evidence of nepotism, just an article which as we scale up and our policies on certain things evolve and formalize, is now clearly nonencyclopedic. Incidentally, thanks to User:Uncle G for attempting to improve the article since my nomination, but it doesn't change my vote -- I feel the "controversy" dug up and added is itself quite nonnotable (the sort of thing which is unsurprising for any PR firm) and does not make the article subject notable. Martinp 11:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete Orphan article for a PR firm, does not meet WP:CORP. Catchpole 09:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete If Jimbo Wales called the original article about Arch Coal "corporate fluff" and a "travesty of NPOV", then surely this article needs to be deleted on grounds of non-notability, fluffy spam, and principle. --BeigeBoy 12:42, 14 October 2006 (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.