Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernstein-Rein


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Bernstein-Rein

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is written only for promotional and advertising purposes. References are very poor. No significant coverage by independent media. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 13:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG. Company was at one time the 6th largest ad agency in the US and is notable for having the Walmart account for over three decades. See this, for example. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Pls see below; Original comment: I'm also finding sufficient sources to meet the CORPDEPTH requirement, such as International Directory of Company Histories and The Advertising Age Encyclopedia of Advertising . Appears to be notable in its space. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This nomination brings up two questions that have not yet been resolved by the community.  First, to what extent (if any) does a commercial organization inherit notability from its clients?  And that does indeed seem to be a relevant question here -- if Wal-Mart and McDonald's had not been the subject's clients, would we even be having this discussion?  Second, there is the more subtle question of whether we should be according any special treatment to organizations that engage in the business-to-business sphere.  It is certainly true that such organizations generally have a tough time satisfying the general notability guidelines, because the mainstream media has little reason to talk about them, let alone talk about them in depth.  But on the other hand, Wikipedia is intended for the general reader, so one can reasonably ask whether such organizations should have articles here.
 * Has the subject been a significant player in its field? No, it hasn't.  It might be helpful to correct a misstatement made by one of the earlier discussants -- the subject was not the sixth largest ad agency in the United States, it was the sixth largest independent agency.  Let's look at some numbers.  The article tells us that just prior to losing the Wal-Mart account in 2007, the company's annual revenue was $550 million.  But at that time, global advertising revenue was on the order of half a trillion dollars, with the North American market accounting for about a third of that.  So, if we measure market shares by rounding off to the nearest whole percentage, the subject doesn't register in the global market, and doesn't even register in the North American market (and by "not register", I mean that its market share is 0%).  In order to get a non-zero result, one has to look at fractions of a percentage, at which point we can say that the subject accounted for 0.1% of global advertising revenue.
 * The subject does not have an entry in the Advertising Age encyclopedia -- the cited link is to the entry for Wal-Mart. As for the entry in the Internal Directory of Company Histories, I can't shake the feeling that the directory is a "pay for play" arrangement (though I'll be happy to look at evidence to the contrary).  In all, the subject has not been significant in its field, and an article on it is not appropriate.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear,, I don't think this company is notable because it has inherited notability from its clients. I think it meets WP:GNG based on the sourcing I'm seeing. I disagree with you that the subject has not been a significant player in its field. This agency created the Happy Meal. See this and this. The company also coined the "Make it a Blockbuster Night" slogan. These are notable, well-covered activities. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- switching to delete per analysis of sources by NewYorkActuary. The AdAge link offered above is not sufficient; it actually explains that the company is not very significant:
 * "It's devastating," said one agency-search consultant. "They've used Wal-Mart as a credential to get a number of regional and b-to-b clients. In one sense, they don't have that credential anymore. In another sense, they do retain all that retail experience."
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: The cultural significance of the Happy Meal alone indicates that this listing should remain. While agencies tend to exist behind the scenes, the weight they add to the cultural landscape make them worthy subjects for listings. Ads have impact. See this ad. Hugely impactful, and if someone wants to know more about the agency that created this ad, and other ads, Wikipedia should be a resource for them.--Joshuald (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)User:joshuald
 * The linked Times article does not mention Bernstein-Rein, and says that the idea belonged to a McDonald's regional advertising manager. Notability is not WP:INHERITed from a notable entity; it needs to be demonstrated independently. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to Wikipedia. I trust everything has been well during your five-year hiatus.  In your former tenure here, you did a fine job of developing the Happy Meal article, including giving Bernstein full credit for his role in creating it.  But this is what typically happens -- a person who plays a substantial role in an encyclopedic topic gets a discussion of what they did in the article on that topic.  You haven't made a compelling case for having a stand-alone article on Bernstein's company.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, per analysis by User:NewYorkActuary. Yes, they developed the Happy Meal, but nobody seems to have paid much notice to them because of it... at least not enough attention to get substantial coverage in independent sources.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete as advertising for an advertising company, the claims that it's involvements with its clients would be enough is not so, because with a case like this, we would actually need considerably better for a convincing article. SwisterTwister   talk  01:55, 9 October 2016 (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.