Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risdall Advertising Agency (2nd nomination)

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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Risdall Advertising Agency

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this at AfD back in July, saying "Regional advertising agency. No apparent importance". It was defended by the article creator as "One of the larger agencies in the Twin Cities market with clients across the country and internationally. Also the same size as Martin Williams Advertising and Campbell Mithun" As nobody else commented even after 2 relistings, it was closed (properly) as non-consensus.

The reply to the reasons for keeping is, of course, that there are many other advertising agencies whose articles should be deleted. , and that "one of the larger" is not the same thing as "notability. I would now at promotionalism as an additional reason: a list of a firm's clients is not approptiate contents, but advertising.

DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Clio award carries a fair bit of prestige, doesn't it? Whether the same is true of the Clio Healthcare awards (inaugurated in 2009), I don't know. One of the citations says this agency won two of the latter. —rybec 11:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments A lot of the content is sourced to some bloke called Risdall. Among what isn't, I particularly like this bit: Risdall becomes the first advertising agency in the world to be organically listed on Google for the search term "advertising agency." The source for this inscrutable statement actually says: Of more than 180,000 firms worldwide, RAA is the first organically listed on a Google search for the term "Advertising agency." (When you Google something, two lists of results come up: The paid list of relevant ads, and the organic — or, unpaid — list of actual search results.) I'll attempt a translation into English: When I search in Google for the term "Advertising agency", at the top of the list of hits is RAA. The writer posted it at MinnPost (of Minneapolis). I'll wildly guess that his Googling showed a preoccupation with Minn. Possibly his IP number identified him as being in Minn. Well, he did write this back in 2008, when the Google "bubble" wasn't as well known then as it is now. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to search results was deleted. Client list helps indicate the agency's regional/national prominence.--Jansenminneapolis (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC) SpeedyDelete Every edit seems to be traced back to Jansenminneapolis, seems suspicious.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apart from being spammy, there's not much to indicate that they meet WP:CORP. They're probably very good at what they do, but there's a big leap from "competent" to "notable". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:46, 19 February 2014 (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.