Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaymie Scotto & Associates

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaymie Scotto & Associates

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

Out of the sources provided, all of the ones I have checked were press releases, brief mentions and non-RS'. The leading trade magazine, PRWeek, has no search results for them except for this blurb. Promotional article on non-notable PR firm, far from attaining the two in-depth profile stories outlined at WP:CORP. CorporateM (Talk) 15:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's not exactly spam, but I don't see how this is anything more than another very run of the mill public relations company. The cites given are to YouTube, other social media, and brief standard listings on the website for Information Week, as well as their own press releases, self-generated content (Market Wired on Yahoo), and web page; none of them are reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any in-depth reliable sources on this firm and the article as it stands is almost entirely promotional. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2014 (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.