Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larsono'brien

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. Cbrown1023 talk 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larsono'brien

Ad agency. Speedied twice for lack of assertion of notability, now asserts notability as the first US ad agency with a China office. I don't think that's particularly notable, and I don't think the sources show notability per WP:CORP. Also seems to be written by one of the agency's founders, see WP:COI. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's some local coverage, but among other things it confirms that this is the 15th largest ad agency in Pittsburgh. That's not a great claim to notability and probably means it ranks below 150th nationally. --Dhartung | Talk 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under an empty case of Iron City Beer: Ah, but this outfit's not the first ad agency with a China office. It's the first "small to mid-sized, privately held advertising agency to operate fully-functioning offices in the People's Republic of China," which qualifies the hell out of it, presuming it's an accurate assertion. The links are mostly junk, and the Post-Gazette one (the only reliable source in the lot) is a trivial mention in a much larger local business column. Only 93 unique hits [1], with the usual double play kiss of notability death: the lead two hits are the firm's website and this Wikipedia article. RGTraynor 19:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per above. Also, possible conflict of interest (that I've marked), as the creator's username is Jackobrien, who is identified in the article as the co-founder. Although I have to disagree with RGTraynor's logic on lead (Google) hits - General Motors and Berkshire Hathaway have their website as #1 and their Wikipedia article as #2. Dangerous precedent to set. Staeiou (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note* I have opened a talk page to assert uniqueness. The reference to "Iron City Beer" is not funny, not appreciated. For someone allegedly looking for truth this poster employs far too much subjective language and innuendo. "The links are mostly junk, a trivial mention, presuming it's true"...please spare me the eliteism. Other posts: The 15th largest was not our assertion (actually we are in the top 10). Please note my talk page. I am new to Wikipedia and I apologize if I am not handling this according to precedent, however, I am surprised by the recognition we have received by peers, yet the apparent lack of appreciation of our unique achievement as evidenced in this debate could keep us from being listed. We are developing the support for our assertions (don't want you to think were making this stuff up) as fast as we can. Please let me know what gaps we need to fill. Thanks. JackOBrien —Preceding comment was added at 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability guidelines, regardless of personal opinions. Article reads more like an advertisement, in any case. Rockhound (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator seems to be hedging his bets, having also created LarsonO’Brien and redirecting the original. I filed for a speedy on the first one, but upon reflection it seems better to warrant a redirect to the one already under consideration. Under the circumstances, especially if it's already been speedied twice, I advocate Salting as well. RGTraynor 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on entry's notability (and please also see article's discussion page)* Dear Wikipedia, As the former Vice President/Asia Pacific for Publicis, the fourth largest advertising group in the world, I can say without fear of contradiction, that not only is the LarsonO'Brien presence in China notable, given the agency's size and the fact that it is privately held but that it is also of interest for people trying to understand how to invest in the China market. It is also notable in that it is utilizing a unique business model in the market bringing Western Style marketing communications to the Chinese market in the business to business field. Presently, all of the advertising in China is being produced either by indigenous Chinese firms, or by large multi-national agencies that have created Joint Venture companies. By law, only Chinese companies are permitted to conduct advertising activities. Yet despite the investment of the last few years there is a huge void in the LarsonO'Brien/Dashi client niche where a significant number of expatriate companies now fall. In other words, a substantial number of prospective client companies entering the China market are not served by a local agency that looks and acts like domestic agencies, yet offers high-level China expertise and boots on the ground with International expertise. Neil HardwickDt320 (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Promotional article reads like an ad. Edison (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only real editors (creator included) seem to be making the article worse, rather than better. I would advise that anyone attached to the organization who wants to push this article into the 'pedia to go read as many of the Wikipedia guidelines as possible. It would go a long way in improving both the editors' quality, and the article's notability, if those with knowledge of the medium were posting within the challenged guidelines. Rockhound (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I have just re-edited the truncated article to satisfy neutrality of language requirements. Please also note there are powerful references to notability from ad industry authorities in the US and Asia that should put to rest the original delete requests based on questions of notability. With regard to the Salting criticism, the redirect is based upon the misspellings of O'Brien (O'Brien, OBrien, O'brien, Obrien, etc.) which is unusually necessary because the name includes an apostrophe and, if misspelled, cannot otherwise be found through the site's search engine.JackOBrien

Reply: Actually, "salting," in deletion terminology, refers to the blocking of an article (generally in cases where recreation of deleted articles, a violation of Wikipedia policy, has either happened or is deemed probable) so that it cannot be recreated without admin action. RGTraynor 18:45, 25 April 2008 (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.