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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feinstein/McGuiness Public Relations[edit]

Feinstein/McGuiness Public Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does this vanity piece about an obscure service provider (with a whole eleven employees) that pimps for brand names qualify under WP:CORP? I don't see it; but will readily admit there may be cultural barriers involved. (Just reading the article nauseates me.) Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet notability criteria, also WP:MILL, also the references provided do not review the company itself but only mention it in the context of reporting other things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking reliable independent sources to establish notability. Blue Rasberry is right that the sources don't directly mention it, and there are worse sources than that. Vcessayist (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2012 (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.