Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Relations Global Network (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public Relations Global Network

[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)

I fail to see how this is notable (again). As with the prior AFD, the sources are almost entirely funding announcements, press releases, their own website, listings and the NYT piece is a basic announcement of leadership roles - so not specifically coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 14:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page should not be deleted because the article has reliable sources, such as The New York Times (see here and here), the State of Delaware, and three books (see here, here and here). Besides, the content is not the same as the previous version that was deleted and the editor @Bbb23: declined the speedy elimination "because the current article has many more sources". Chronus (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two NYT sources are webdenda's, which means they aren't the same standard that most of NYT's publications are - it lacks a byline too. It isn't coverage. As far as Delaware - a state isn't in the business of journalistic publications. It's nothing more than a business listing of which there are millions. None of the books are about the company in any capacity - they are fleeting, passing mentions and single name drops and nothing of substance. CUPIDICAE💕 16:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one more bibliographic source and a US State Department source. Chronus (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources used aren't reliable, mostly minimal coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page has reliable sources, such as The New York Times (see here and here), the State of Delaware, and three books (see here, here and here). Chronus (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, again that's their webdendum, it's nothing more than a basic business announcement and I've read the articles numerous times. The NYT does not have any indepth coverage of this company. CUPIDICAE💕 19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one more bibliographic source and a US State Department source. Chronus (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating this makes no difference. Government listings are worthless and a brief passing mention in a book that doesn't even cover it in a full page is equally as useless. CUPIDICAE💕 19:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This source, and several others, proves that PRGN is relevant a global network of advertising agencies. Chronus (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Non-notable sources with trivial, minimal mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are press releases just saying some country was added to the network. I did not see any in-depth coverage in independent RS. MB 16:07, 27 February 2022 (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.