Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agency.com

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 to keep it, based on rewrite, though serious attention is needed. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agency.com[edit]

Consensus needed. The article does not establish the company's notability sufficiently and was flagged as ProD. However, it should probably be discussed first as it seems to me to be a bit of a borderline case. — jammycakes (t) 10:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN advertisng agency Lurker 11:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Blatant Advertising for an NN Advertising Agency Rackabello 13:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even Speedy Delete - Blatant advertising. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. as per nom.--Edtropolis 14:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus needed. Over the next few days I would appreciate the opportunity to add relevant NPOV info to improve notability and look forward to receiving your feedback on that effort. DeepDishChicago 14:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I declined the speedy, but I see no way that this article established the notability of the company.--Chaser - T 16:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Keep the awards in the rewrite did it for me. Number 5 on AdWeek's list of ad agencies, wow!--Chaser - T 14:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability concerns. Addhoc 21:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Keep - good rewrite. Addhoc 19:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus Sought An expanded article has been posted. Please review and comment. Additional citations for notability will be added, and the page will be maintained. If there are no additional comments or issues posted by 21 June, 2007, I will remove the Deletion and Notability tags. ThanksUser:DeepDishChicago 09:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon the expanded article I would say Weak Keep and also tag with {{cleanup-restructure}} and {{sections}}. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment.~~ Although the references make a more convincing case for notability, it now reads more than ever like a company brochure rather than an encyclopedia article. If it stays, this needs to be addressed. — jammycakes (t) 16:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that a recent edit to the article [1] was carried out by a user from IP address 38.115.171.46 which apparently belongs to agency.com. [2] The only other anonymous edit from this address was to a draft version of the rewrite in User:DeepDishChicago's user space. [3] This leads me to suspect that there may be conflicts of interest involved in the rewrite, though admittedly a company of that size which has won several industry awards probably is notable enough for Wikipedia. My final opinion is Weak keep, but tag with {{COI2}}. — jammycakes (t) 13:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.