Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agency Republic


 * 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. Rough consensus is that the subject has enough significance to merit inclusion, while changes since the nomination have improved sourcing and removed promotional content. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agency Republic

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Shamelessly promotional and generally fails to assert notability under WP:GNG or WP:CORP Addionne (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A significant and award-winning firm with plenty of references from reliable sources and not unduly promotional, either. Quoting a company's mission statement and slogans is valid if it offers an insight into the company's operations. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If it -IS- overly promotional, then it should be editted and not deleted in this case, as the article is notable and very well-referenced. SmokingNewton (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, strongly. This is outrageous spam.  The lede calls this an interactive communications agency, but fortunately the infobox mentions advertising as what they actually do.  This goes on to say it's (c)reatively-driven, with a focus on Research & Development and exists to create world class interactive ideas..., which is no doubt all very nice and means exactly nothing.  This rubbish has got to go, and ought to have been speedily deleted no matter how notable they might be.  And don't try to tell me that it could be fixed by editing: this whole text needs to be deleted; and business to business firms with purely intangible assets and no brick and mortar presence really aren't solid enough to make good article subjects in any case. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be clearly notable, if the claims made about awards and clients are true which seems to be true. I cleared the purely promotional section "Culture" and we still need some more copy-editing. Otherwise it's okay. PanchoS (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I had originally suggested speedy deletion based on my belief that this page would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. However, now that we are here, I also believe it does not meet general notability.  References by Brand Republic, Campaign Magazine and Marketing Magazine are the same articles across multiple sites - which are in turn part of the same group of websites.  Other sources I have found are all similarly on this group of sites (which includes Media Week and Revolution).  IMO this does not constitute multiple, independent sources - but is really one news source.  The remaining award listings are little more than passing mentions - and are not necessarily notable awards themselves to make the company pass WP:CORP.  Addionne (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. None of these claimed sources would appear to have anything other than limited interest and circulation &mdash; i.e. no real readership outside the advertising business.  And you'd expect people in that business to be skilled at publicizing themselves. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2010 (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.