Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rauxa

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. T. Canens (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rauxa[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is a marketing firm with a very tenuous claim to notability. There is some claim to notability in the article, so I guess it doesn't strictly qualify for speedy deletion: in 2010 they were #179 on the list of top US advertising agencies and #35 (out of 50) on the list of top US Hispanic-American agencies, both rankings by Ad Age DataCenter (I have no idea if this is a reliable source or not). Furthermore, the company's president is listed as one of "30 direct marketers under 30" (not a list of top marketers, simply thirty marketers who are not yet 30 years old) by dmnews.com. I maintain that these claims are not sufficient to prove notability per WP:NCORP. bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —bonadea contributions talk 08:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —bonadea contributions talk 08:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Publicity related businesses need to clearly demonstrate some kind of significance beyond the ordinary. Inclusions on Top 30 lists and the like only count towards notability if the list itself is so well known outside the industry that every entry on it can also be presumed to be notable. We either have 29 more articles on similar businesses to create, or we have ... a spammer clutching at straws. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Smerdis of Tlön and the nominator make good points. The rationale that because the director may be significant (which he may or may not be) and therefore the company should be included is flawed as well per WP:ORG#1.2 or WP:ITSA. At first, I noticed what appeared to be multiple new stories about the company, even one by the New York Times, but unfortunately it appears all of them are either the regurgitated press release from a few years ago, or, as is the case with the New York Times, a passing reference. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 20:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe Advertising agency category is composed of a myriad of Agencies of varying Sizes many of which likely have even less notability, for example Doremus & Co.. In 2010 Ernst & Young listed their CEO as a semi-finalist for entrepreneur of the year http://www.ey.com.br/US/en/About-us/Entrepreneur-Of-The-Year/OrangeDesert_2010_Semifinalists and the company is continually referenced for their insight into how in Social media integrates with DM by leading marketing publications such as http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100201/FREE/100209975/1409 as well as their integration of social media in Hispanic communication http://www.hispanicmpr.com/resources/articles/reshaping-hispanic-marketing-through-social-media/ Seyoda (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Seyoda. Unfortunately, there are certain policies on Wikipedia which need to be upheld in matters such as these. For a subject to be notable enough on Wikipedia that it merits its own article, it must have, in addition to other things, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, as I already said and others did above, nobody has been able to find such sources yet. In reply to your comment: (1) A subject must be notable in its own right; notability cannot be inherited - therefore just because the agency might be the bigger part of another agency which is just about notable enough, isn't by itself for inclusion. (2) This is per WP:NOTINHERITED again. Just because the CEO might be notable enough, that does not mean that the company itself is, necessarily. It might merit a mention in the article about the CEO, however (if the CEO is indeed notable). (3) Unfortunately those references you cite are do not help establish notability because they are press releases, and therefore not independent of the subject. Hope this clarifies things. You might also want to check out WP:ORG and obviously WP:N. Thanks. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay - http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100201/FREE/100209975/1409 and http://www.hispanicmpr.com/resources/articles/reshaping-hispanic-marketing-through-social-media/ are both marketing publications (non-pr) posts that directly highlight Rauxa's work in Social Media also the ey.com post is from Ernst & Young a very well respected audit firm, there are no PR items that are being leveraged as refs. Rauxa's contribution to PR and Hispanic Marketing has alos been covered in DM News which is another Direct Marketing publication http://www.dmnews.com/marketers-aim-for-authenticity/article/168129/ 06:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seyoda (talk • contribs)

I'm really sorry, Seyoda, but I'm afraid none of the information you kindly provided substantiates this company's notability. Something Must have had significant secondary source coverage in independent, reliable sources. I admit that I made a mistake in saying that [1] and [2] were press releases, however, all they are is advice/insight (very useful, don't get me wrong) into some marketing aspects, etc, by employees of the company (so is [3]). They don't, however, cover the company itself, and do not (not that they should) talk about the company's significance. The reason I had said that they were press releases was because I assumed by looking straight away at the authors who were employees, that they were. The point is that even if those articles were not press releases, and did cover the subject significantly, they still, unfortunately, would not prove notability because such sources have to be independent of the subject. Yes, the ey.com may well be independent etc, but I do not think merely inclusion in a list counts as significant coverage. If the company really is notable, significant references in independent, reliable, secondary sources will be around. Thanks. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 07:52, 7 March 2011 (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.