Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stein Rogan + Partners

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Notability issues, also appears somewhat spammy. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stein Rogan + Partners

Stein Rogan + Partners (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Little evidence of notability, appears to have been written as advertising, fails WP:CORP. TeaDrinker 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is not fully developed. Also this page does not contain contact information, offers or any calls to action which would clearly make it advertising. It contains public information valuable in certain industries, including the press that cover small to mid size agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxport (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • thanks for the edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxport (talk • contribs) 00:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No problem. Addhoc 00:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - from the web searches, the business appears to be sufficiently notable. Addhoc 00:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete if this isn't advertising, it needs a major rewrite. RainbowOfLight Talk 11:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate the feedback from the community. I welcome suggestions on items to include. Many thanks!

  • Delete despite the many good faith edits, the article doesn't really assert any unique or remarkable status that would equate to notability. SkerHawx 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - if this discussion is heading towards a delete consensus, then possibly suggest the article could be userfied.--Addhoc 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this is relevant to the advertising industry and for anyone who is researching agencies. It doesn't seem to be using any "call to action" to get people to use their services; it's just provides factual information which many people can find useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmyBear (talk • contribs) 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is small advertising agency without any notable feature. --McSly 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment According to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, it states ''"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources" This article does contain such sources. Additionally, "...however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."MaXpOrT 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC).
    • Comment Agreed, and McSly's choice of words (small) should have no bearing on this debate. However, having some secondary sources is only part of notability. I've been featured in DM News, but I'm not notable (IMHO). The sources have to be independent, AND they have to prove notability. Your strongest claim to notability is probably the "agency of the year" awards. You could (again, in my opinion only) strengthen notability by showing (through outside secondary sources) that you are well known within the X community for Y, where X is any community (probably advertising) and Y is your niche or speciality. In short, you have to demonstrate that the company is notable as compared to other companies in your space. Cheers. SkerHawx 23:42, 2 October 2007 (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.