Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fenton Communications (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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fenton Communications

AfDs for this article:

[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)

This PR firm fails WP:COMPANY. Independent reliable sources are lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Skynxnex (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Was not expecting coverage in the New York Times [1] but it's there. Company profile in a book for internships [2] and this [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That NYT "article" is labeled advertising. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that means it's coverage of the world of advertising, like "sports" or "restaurants", but to be fair it's paywalled, so I have no idea. The book sources still seem decent. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, could be !merged into the Alar article, they seem to have been instrumental in the subsequent kerfuffle about the food usage of the chemical. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, I read it as covering the advertising business (after all this is an ad agency), rather than as an advertisement. Here's an archive link. — Jacona (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so we're back at notability then. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added 2 sources, one of which (Human Events) offers significant coverage, to the extent that the article can be greatly expanded using it. It is a partisan source however, so care must be taken to present the information in a neutral manner. Regardless, this firm's track record in influencing public debate on environmental and social issues seems to be unquestioned. Just take a look at the sources found in the first AfD linked above. StonyBrook _babble 10:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to others listed above, especially Human Events, there is a lot on newspaperarchive.com. - I'm finding it very difficult to clip there, the interface is kludgy, but this and this provide WP:SIGCOV in addition to the above. Jacona (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can read the articles, via the Wikipedia Library access; interface is clunky. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, Thanks. Also, this WSJ article could be helpful, needs a direct link. — Jacona (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant expansion, probably meets WP:HEY. - Indefensible (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been significantly expanded, includes 2 NYT sources, 2 Chicago Tribune, 1 WSJ, and numerous other new sources, many of which contain significant coverage which could be used for further expansion. Jacona (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The sources added since the Afd was initially posted are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 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.