Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agency Republic (3rd 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agency Republic[edit]

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

Already made two rounds at AfD. In both cases the outcome was to keep it and clean up the promotion. 3 years later and awards are still the only thing covered in the article. I would trim them, but there would be no article left. Best to remove it until a disinterested editor makes a proper page per WP:NOT promotion. CorporateM (Talk) 03:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a private company operating as an advertising agency. It has worked for some notable clients, but notab ilitry is not inherited. I assume that the Alistair Campbell mentioend is not the journalist who was Tony Blair's press secretary. I might be convinced to vote "keep", if there was some evidcne as to substantial profits, capital employed, or staff employed. Until someone will provide clear evidence of notability, I would assume that it is NN. However I do not know and am thus not voting. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on my research, it does not pass our general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2013 (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.