Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infamous PR

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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous PR

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No way near meeting WP:CORP SmartSE (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Advertising, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are routine announcements or mentions. Nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning delete,~~ but ProQuest is down so not confident. —siro χ o 04:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this. I had thought there were enough sources to justify a stub being created, but I can appreciate there probably aren't. The article was flagged after I first published it because the tone wasn't correct- but the editor who flagged it then didn't have an issue with the sources, so I assumed they were good enough. Can we move it into draft space in case there are ever better sources in the future or does it need deleting? Editing84 (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Editing84's request. —siro χ o 10:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks- have moved back to draftspace. Not sure if I should remove the deletion tag or not so have left it for now, apologies if that's messy. Editing84 (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editing84, do not move an article that is being discussed at an AFD, especially since you have commented here. There is no reason to close this AFD early and never by an editor that one could consider to be INVOLVED. Your page move has been reverted by another editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realised that after it was reverted- apologies, I just read the comment by Siroxo as a directive without realising the discussion was ongoing. Obviously happy to wait it out for as long as needed. Thanks for the clarification. Editing84 (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure draftify is the best option here. It was already draftified once and creator moved it to back to mainspace five days later. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- that was also due to my misunderstanding of the draftify/discussion process. I didn't hear back again from the editor who draftified it after they explained the amendments that needed to be made. No official discussion with other editors seemed to be taking place and they didn't respond either way after I said I had made the amendments and moved it back into mainspace. I assumed they would have said at that point if it needed to stay as a draft. I just wanted to clarify what happened and why. I would have happily left it in drafts for it to be added to over time had I realised- sorry again. Editing84 (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is fine. Give the editor a chance to work on it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this would be the second time sending back to draft. As company was founded in 2008 and isn't notable (imho) I am unsure of what else could be accomplished in draft space. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping it would go through the AfC process again before the draft is accepted, was my understanding of the process. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify although based on my searching I can't see any potential sources that may be used to establish notability as per GNG/WP:NCORP (especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND for "Independent Content") but perhaps the author will have better luck so no harm giving them an opportunity to try. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What a surprise - a PR company relies on pseudo PRs sources. Nowhere near good enough. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2023 (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.