Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rees Bradley Hepburn


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Rees Bradley Hepburn

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Brandon (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete it also happens to be promotional, verging on WP:SPAM Ohconfucius (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This firm meets WP:N, as a search reveals newspaper coverage, awards, and confirmation of the client list. That said, the article needs to be re-written to include sources. Transmissionelement (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's self-promotional and full of peacock terms - but it legitimately covers an award-winning agency that's delivered a number of very high profile campaigns. It definitely needs a lot of work as an article, but shouldn't be deleted out of hand.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The award is for the best digital advertising outside of London, and, with those two qualifiers, I do not know how significant that is. I'd like advice from someone who knows the structure of this industry there, and how concentrated it is in London.  DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 27 September 2009 (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.