Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portland (communications)

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

Just another little PR company; having notable clients does not make one notable. Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your pithy comments. May I ask what makes Portland different to: Weber Shandwick, Burson-Marsteller, Ketchum, Blue Rubicon, Fleishman-Hillard, Edelman Public Relations.

Who all have Wikipedia articles.

Is it size or success? Becuase if the latter, Portland is documented as beating the above firms in bidding processes.

Would it help if I detailed a list of UK national media references that mention the firm? What evidence needs to be provided for a firm to be considered for inclusion? The notability guidelines are - due to the different interpretations of their rules - less than clear. Thus, I would greatly appreciete advice on this issue.

Many Thanks Adam Wildman --Adam Wildman (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the old and worthless "look at these other articles" argument. If you don't think these firms are notable, nominate the articles for deletion. (It is my experience that marketing firms have severe delusions about the notability of themselves and their rivals; whereas most of the human race goes in blithe disregard of the existence of these little organizations.) Our standards for corporate notability are to be found at WP:CORP. I must ask: what is your connection with this company? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of the required significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear UKexpat,

Sorry to bother you, but does significant coverage include more national newspaper articles, because there are plenty of those. I myself believe the firm to be of interest because it has significant links to the New Labour PR machine. I understand OrangeMike's point about the firm itself not being notable, but a PR firm is never anything more than its employees and its clients. From what I understand, that is what makes a PR firm; its ability to connect to the right people.

On another note, I had noticed that the guidelines - in a round about way - state that the notability of an article is at the discretion of the person reviewing the article in question. As this firm (and the people connected/employeed by it) are associated with New Labour (a British phenomenon), perhaps OrangeMike - as an American - does not recognise the significance of this. As to my connections to this company, I am not employed by this Firm.

Appologies for the lengthy response. --Adam Wildman (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply -You may be misunderstanding our guidelines. The entirety of those editing Wikipedia are the judges as to notability; I'm just the guy who brought it up for the consideration of the body. I am, as it happens, depressingly familiar with the history of New "Labour" (a/k/a Tory-Lite, a/k/a all sorts of bitter beardmutterings about class traitors and those who enable them). That's not relevant here. The question is as to whether the firm as a firm is notable in and of itself (a notable execution does not make the hangman notable); and so far the case has not been made. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thank you for your speedy response, I will endeavour to make swift ammendments~~. --Adam Wildman (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have made some ammendments to article, namely, have updated the 'Clients' section and detailed what Portland has, in itself, achieved. --Adam Wildman (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2010 (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.