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. I don't think the salt shaker is needed yet but I'll keep an eye on this. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Halo Group[edit]

The Halo Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Previously at AFD and deleted per community consensus it failed notability described at WP:NOTE. Re-created with some questionable sources by a new user. Bringing here to AFD for community assessment of this version and whether or not it fails WP:NOTE. Cheers. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments After this request for feedback, and a furrther request on my talk page, I was asked to check over the references for this. As the AfD is ongoing, I thought it might be useful to add my comments here;

• Ref 1 is really a very brief mention of Halo - and it doesn't, of course, even mention "The Halo Group" - just "Halo Advertizing". It might be OK to verify who opened that, in 1994, but it doesn't help show any notability for "The Halo Group".
• Ref 2 just shows a person who works there wrote an article. The article itself being totally unrelated to Halo.
• Ref 3 verifies the award, but has no details about Halo - ie, just a listing entry.
• Ref 4, I am wary of anything relating to PR; was this article ever published, or is it just an online thing? A lot of these PR-type websites will pretty much report anything on their website. It certainly reads in a very promotional way; is it really an independent source - or, did Halo have involvement, in writing it, or paying for its inclusion?
• Ref 5 I cannot see all of that, because it requires subscription; but a) it again looks like PR, and b) it seems to be, really, about Liebherr, b) it looks like PR
• Ref 6 - is this an independent source? "Dolan Media Newswires"?
• Ref 7 for the claim 'featured in adweek' - but, again, this article is not about Halo at all; it just mentions them, at the end.
• Ref 8 another very brief mention
• Ref 9 an award listing

In conclusion, I cannot see evidence of "Significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject", which is the notability requirement. See also WP:CORP.  Chzz  ►  07:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. An advertising page for an ad agency. Simply being "recognized" for having created advertising campaigns does not establish that this business has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture. And this re-creation is entirely a PR puff piece and does not really address the issues that led to this article being deleted before. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:27, 7 February 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.