Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro RSCG London


 * 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 no consensus. Difficult call here. Unfortunately, despite relisting, there's too low a level of contribution to generate consensus. I'm calling no consensus for deletion, but with some support for a merge/redirect if a target can be worked out. I'd also leave open the possibility of new afd in a few weeks. Scott Mac 12:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Euro RSCG London

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just another advertising agency with no indications of any real notability. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dan, we have had a wikipedia page for years. I was simply updating our name and information following our rebrand which happened on Monday. Why now are we not notable but we had a site for years so I assume were then? What can I do to increase our notability?? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupola2012 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've also now ammended the links so they should credible, objective and not self promotion.


 * Comment The age of a page is not relevant during a deletion discussion (see WP:ARTICLEAGE). The assumption that this company has been notable in the past and is only now not notable is false.  The recent changes in the page brought it to my attention, and I found that the notability of the company in question did not merit inclusion at Wikipedia.  The amended links do not help, as they are all to press releases published by the company, rather than any real evidence of significant, independent coverage.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete No evidence that Euro RSCG London is/was notable, as distinct from Euro RSCG itself. AllyD (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 Merge into Havas. CamillePontalec (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC) 
 * Strong Keep The page offers crucial information about the agency, including the brands they work with and the management. There is plenty of information here to maintain the article. It is often very difficult to find this kind of information about advertising agencies. Additionally, every advertising agency is sufficiently different from its parent companies because of the way the advertising industry is structured. Additionally, the article is updated regularly. @SmithAndTeam (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, there's plenty of information here, but it's all from primary sources. There's no indication of any significant coverage of this company in independent media.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The agency has many awards. http://www.clioawards.com/catalog/2012/film/ http://blogit.realwire.com/Euro-RSCG-London-wins-prestigious-TED-award-for-best-global-Ad-worth-spreading are a couple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithandteam (talk • contribs) 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Selective merge to Havas. Most of the content is not encyclopedic style: the intro, list of clients, and a summmary list of campaigns can be kept, but the individual descriptions of the campaigns are full of dubious unsourced POV statements, opinion, original research, and bullshit (using the word in its technical sense). Cut that and you have a very short article. Since it's now part of the Havas group, merging is sensible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Opinion, if this were to be merged I think the better merge is to Euro_RSCG_Worldwide (which should be renamed to Havas Worldwide now?). It seems Havas is the main umbrella holding Arnold Worldwide, Havas Digital and what is now renamed Havas Worldwide (current link at Euro RSCG Worldwide), and Euro RSCG London is within that Euro RSCG/Havas Worldwide division. In general, the various redirects and name changes could use a little clarification from someone who knows exactly how they break down. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the accurate breakdown of holding companies, but individual agencies are notable (see: Ogilvy & Mather, an agency held by WPP). The consensus might be the following combination of edits: RENAME Euro RSCG Worldwide to Havas Worldwide and MERGE Euro RSCG London to Havas Worldwide. @SmithAndTeam (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I think the main three subsidiaries (or such similar term that describes them) are notable, and further breakdown may be the cause of notability concerns. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Major player in PR in Europe, it would seem, see THIS SNIPPET from PR Week which alludes as much. These characters are so effective in manipulating their own Google hits that one has to get deep, deep, deep into the responses to find independent material. Very impressive how they do that, actually. Regardless, I am presuming this is a major player based on clientele, etc. No opinion about merger into another standing piece although I'm very much opposed to outright deletion. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2012 (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.