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. NW (Talk) 22:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noreen Heron and Associates

[edit]

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

Obviously a promotional article, but brought it here instead of nominating it for speedy deletion as it does assert notability, although I'm not convinced it's sufficient. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete spam. So tagged. Assertion of notability is a concern for ((db-a7)), but spam is pretty cut and dry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Keep, on the basis of the references from reliable sources. Of course, the references to the company's own website do not by themselves establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See http://www.heronpr.com/press.html for links to scans and reprints of articles which back up some of the claims (and note that some of those articles do not show up on the website of the publication where they appeared). Today's Chicago Woman doesn't seem to have anything about her online at http://www.tcwmag.com/?search=Noreen+Heron&x=1&y=1 (in fact, the magazine's search doesn't seem to work), but http://www.heronpr.com/se-chicago-pop.html lists three articles which mention her. Of the references in the article, three are the same newspaper story about his skills at multitasking. See also http://www.heronpr.com/irish-pop.html , http://www.heronpr.com/uic-pop.html and http://www.heronpr.com/se-chicago-pop.html -- Eastmain (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A PR firm maintains a list of news briefs where it pushed some journalist to mention them. Wow! Nice case where several sources still don't make for decisive notability. Miami33139 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: the Chicago Tribune article is about Ms. Heron rather than the firm; it's her tips on multitasking rather than coverage of her or the firm's PR activities. I realise the distinction may blurred here but as the article is about the firm and not a BLP, I think the article would have to establish notability specifically for the firm to be kept. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the coverage from reliable sources - really, only one source, reprinted several times - is actually about the business. They're about the CEO's struggle with work life and motherhood, and only incidentally mention where she works. Publicity businesses only become encyclopedia subjects if they meet the most stringent tests of notability, because they're publicity businesses, and presumably know the publicity value of Wikipedia coverage. This business does not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So should the article be moved to Noreen Heron? == Eastmain (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Not sure that being interviewed for a story on "how I juggle a career and motherhood" meets WP:BIO either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is virtually no media coverage of the PR business itself, or of work with the listed clients, and rather little coverage of Ms. Heron. I can't see this meeting WP:N. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2009 (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.