Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic Advertising Group


 * 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 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Republic Advertising Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. It's claims to notability seem to rest upon winning non-notable awards and an inherited notabity from its client list. Cabayi (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - Those "non-notable awards" have Wikipedia articles, which is an obvious contradiction: Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, Epica Awards. The "Aranypenge prize" is a Hungarian one running for 17 years now. I don't have the incentive to browse through the Lions' and Epica's winners to see how many of them is known for absolutely nothing. :-) --grin ✎ 07:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete by all means because this article essentially exists only for PR, the fact it only focuses with otherwise activities fit and suitable for company listings. To be state the obvious, the company is an advertising company, therefore the environment is going to be....PR. The listed sources otherwise state this, considering none of it is actual substance. SwisterTwister   talk  02:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being the Devil's advocate but do you intend to delete every advertising company from Wikipedia since they are... PR? My starting point is usually Ogilvy & Mather, how about trying to getting it removed? I much more would like comments along the line that "there are no independent, external references" or "there are no activities listed apart from winning the awards" instead of "it's a PR agency so the article must be PR". (It was not written by them, that's what I know. I am not related to them, that's another, just being called in to help.) --grin ✎ 08:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? You think there's a reasonable comparison?
 * Ogilvy & Mather, one of the world's largest, 166 year history, multi-national  vs.
 * Republic Advertising Group, seemingly no presence outside Hungary, 19 years old.
 * I think you're over-reaching there. Cabayi (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. You stated that "if it's a PR company then the article must be PR, therefore to be deleted by default". Size was not mentioned, neither notability nor relevance. I have reacted exactly on that. I am not familiar with the handling of PR companies but I'm sure it's not enough reason to be deleted that it is an advertising company. (If I was I would have voted.)
 * Please do check this category to see for yourself that 19 years old is not a problem, there are much younger ones already listed. And it should definitely not be a reasoning that "it's not in the USA so must not be relevant". Nationally relevant entities have their place in enwp. (Apart from that that it seems to be awarded by a foreign body so they have been at least noted outside HU.) --grin ✎ 08:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , You invited comparison with O&M, then complain when I make the comparison. You then ascribe comments about PR companies and the USA to me which I did not make. Rational discussion with you isn't possible. Cabayi (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are being unfair.
 * [UPDATE: I have replied to you since I have believed you made the comment but I have realised that user:SwisterTwister made the post, I have replied it and you have replied as it was your comment I was replied to. I apologise for the misunderstanding: I have replied to the specific comment above, and if I have said "you" I have meant the original poster.]
 * I quote the original post I have replied by SwisterTwister: "To be state the obvious, the company is an advertising company, therefore the environment is going to be....PR.". I have complained that he made this statement, which (in my reading) means "it is obvious that the company is an advertising company, therefore the article must be an advertisement". I have cited O&M as a counter-proof of his statement. I also have cited the list of already established Wikipedia articles about advertising companies, about companies with less than 100+ years of operation, about companies with pretty short list of publicly recognisable achievements and along these lines: all of these being a direct reaction (counter-examples) on what he have written. He made more statements along these lines, and I tried to show or mention articles contradicting what he has said or implied. If you believe I have debated myself you have possibly misunderstood what I was writing. Please try to read it as it were a reaction to what he has written. :-) Thanks. --grin ✎ 08:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- I'm sceptical of this article -- created by a SPA; tone is clearly promotional. I reached out to Wikiproject Hungary. Hopefully they would be able to shed some light on this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Replying to
 * The article was created by a person whom I'm familar with and he approached me by asking for help about what's now. (He's not very familiar with wp processes.) He is in connection with the company and was asked to create an article (I suppose), but he can probably change the tone if asked, he probably don't want to invest more time into a deleted article. I will suggest him to rephrase it anyway, if possible.
 * As someone from Hungary I cannot see what more light could be shed on that. I can assure that the sources do exist and they are real, I have checked them. As for the company: It's some advertising company who have created some more or less visible local projects, have been awarded by some significant national and some international bodies, so I (as someone don't knowing the topic) would consider them notable on the basis that they were picked from the masses of advertising companies by some basis like quality, skills or luck :-). I never have heard of the company, nor the other already wikipedia listed companies in the field, so that won't help. The article was created in huwp around the same time and it's been flagged as "requires rewriting of promotionally phrased content", but not on deletion track. --grin ✎ 08:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PROMO; the tone of the article is clearly promotional. No sources have been presented at the AfD to demonstrate notability of the company. The awards alone cannot sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 27 September 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.