Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amalgamated Advertising


 * 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. People disagree about whether the sourcing level suffices, so in dubio pro keep.  Sandstein  06:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Amalgamated Advertising

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Tagged for notability for a full year. Sources are primary, trivial or don't mention subject. Some n00b tried to nominate this for AFD but didn't do it right. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete, and the current text looks like a speedy delete candidate for blatant advertising: a full-service ad agency and brand consultancy with a "cultural branding" approach that agency partner Douglas Holt defined in his 2004 book, How Brands Become Icons.... Amalgamated has been used to exemplify "the new guerrilla ad guys" who first integrated social media and stunts within "viral" advertising campaigns. When you're an advertising agency, media coverage of your publicity stunts should not count towards notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - When you're an advertising agency, 'publicity stunts' is what you get paid to do, so coverage of these should go some way towards establishing notability, especially when the coverage explicitely references the agency. In this case, there's a fair amount of respectable coverage. I agree the article isn't particularly well written, but it's a long way from a speedy delete in my view. --Korruski (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Substantial coverage in multiple independent sources; doesn't that satisfy WP:COMPANY? When you're a widget factory, coverage of your widgets from independent sources surely counts towards notability; if you're an author, independent reviews of the books you write establish that you're notable; if you're an advertising agency that does publicity stunts, the same should apply... bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Seems marginal. Figureofnine (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * see WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, while I find the approach advocated by Bobrayner and Korruski interesting, I do not believe they conform to policy. What I do not see is significant coverage in reliable sources, but rather passing mention and press releases. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no extensive third party coverage. . LibStar (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think that the first two hits for Amalgamated Advertising at AdvertisingAge amount to trival coverage.  This agency is the real deal and AdAge is a reliable industry source.--Mike Cline (talk) 04:01, 7 October 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.