- 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 no consensus. j⚛e decker talk 22:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Tocquigny
- Tocquigny ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable agency. Orange Mike | Talk 01:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
-
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) 14:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep - The agency holds a prominent local reputation as evidenced by its inclusion in a recent Advertising Age article detailing the growing advertising/tech industry in Austin. Advertising Age The agency's involvement in SXSW should also be noted on the page Zagat Chief Marketer to improve the notability. I've begun updating and citing the awards section to showcase some of the agency's more recent notable activity. - McPetersJ ( talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not seeing enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. The Advertising Age story and the Zagat article (which is really a promotional piece) linked above barely mention the agency. I don't see much in the way of anything that might meet WP:RS and that isn't routine local coverage. The awards, quite frankly, don't appear to convey any sort of notability. -- Kinu t/ c 18:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 02:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. It was a 65 person firm back in 2006, per the Austin Business Journal article (included in the article) about it back then. That is one substantial coverage article on its own. The awards do matter; they do establish notability. -- do ncr am 17:38, 17 November 2014 (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.
- 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 no consensus. j⚛e decker talk 22:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Tocquigny
- Tocquigny ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable agency. Orange Mike | Talk 01:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
-
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) 14:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep - The agency holds a prominent local reputation as evidenced by its inclusion in a recent Advertising Age article detailing the growing advertising/tech industry in Austin. Advertising Age The agency's involvement in SXSW should also be noted on the page Zagat Chief Marketer to improve the notability. I've begun updating and citing the awards section to showcase some of the agency's more recent notable activity. - McPetersJ ( talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not seeing enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. The Advertising Age story and the Zagat article (which is really a promotional piece) linked above barely mention the agency. I don't see much in the way of anything that might meet WP:RS and that isn't routine local coverage. The awards, quite frankly, don't appear to convey any sort of notability. -- Kinu t/ c 18:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 02:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. It was a 65 person firm back in 2006, per the Austin Business Journal article (included in the article) about it back then. That is one substantial coverage article on its own. The awards do matter; they do establish notability. -- do ncr am 17:38, 17 November 2014 (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.