Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PR Web

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. Although there was no consensus to delete, WP:V cannot be overridden by consensus, and no reliable published sources have been given for any of this content. Recreated as a redirect to Vocus. Sandstein 05:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PR Web

PR Web (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete. Advertising. They justify their name at least. Akihabara 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a big enough company. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, is being a "big enough company" equal to, say, passing WP:CORP or WP:WEB? I don't see "big enough" in any of those criteria. -- Kicking222 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They are quite notable. OTH, article needs a LOT of work though - does not cite any independent sources for verification. All ref links are to its own websites. Its a weak keep, article is horribly written (reads like a company brochure). --Eqdoktor 19:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Have you ever noticed how the articles (presumably self-written) we get on PR operations are so consistently badly written? Kind of makes you wonder. Fan-1967 21:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, as spam or regular-speed delete as failing WP:V. Recury 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even their parent company, Vocus, is sufficiently notable. And since there is no non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party sources, the information in this article cannot be properly verified. Redirect to new article Vocus. -- Satori Son 22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Vocus is notable. See Vocus. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Nice job on article creation, but that still doesn't make this company notable, or provide sufficient sources for this article. I will, however, change my opinion above to "Redirect". -- Satori Son 00:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A Google News Archive search shows that they meet WP:CORP for mine. [1]Capitalistroadster 02:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure it's any big surprise to see a lot of press releases from a public relations firm. Not many of these hits are third-party, however, and I could not find any that were non-trivial. Do you have any specific cites that you think might qualify? If I'm wrong, show me and I'll admit it. -- Satori Son 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB and INDEPENDENT WP:V - their own press releases or fluff don't count. SkierRMH,08:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The company handles news releases for many thousands of organizations. A similar company is Business Wire —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freshspot (talk • contribs) 21:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC).— Freshspot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment. PRWeb's material is distributed by Yahoo, so it passes criterion 3 of WP:WEB. See http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index&cid=2224 --23:43, 18 December 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.