Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ad-Up (2nd 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 - inclusion of other articles isn't a basis for arguing for the inclusion of this one, and the consensus is that this company doesn't meet the requirements of WP:CORP. Yomangani^talk 11:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ad-Up

Incomplete nomination. This article was nominated and deleted on October 28th and then recreated on October 31st. . The original nominator (the 2nd nomination) only posted the AfD on the article page so no reason was given, but it appears the article still has the same problems from the first AfD. Scottmsg 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete I was the one who nominated this (incorrectly), I believe it is straight up advertising and is almost identical to the last article of the same name that was deleted for being advertising. -- Librarianofages 03:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Declined. Please address the works cited in the article and explain in detail how they fail to satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Uncle G 13:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I do not see what it is that makes this article blatant advertising. Some of the facts aren't verified through the sources (like reasons for Ad-Up surviving the dot-com bust), but they can be either verified or removed. The last AFD got deletion based on the nom, "Article asserts notability but has had an unreferenced tag since August 2006. I can find no sources to backup the claim. Smells like linkspam." Without being look at the previous version of the page, I can't tell wether this is similar content to the deleted page; but considering there's a few sources that give it mention in the online advertising world, I'm guessing this version is different than its predecessor. I'm leaning toward keep unless someone proves me otherwise. —Mitaphane _talk 05:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've looked at the previous version. It's the same set of references, from the same editor (Chez37 (talk · contribs)). However the in the previous AFD discussion not a single editor who wanted the article deleted actually addressed the references and gave an explanation of how they didn't demonstrate that WP:CORP was satisfied. So personally, I'm inclined not to speedily delete this as a re-creation but to let this discussion run, in the hope that this time around editors will look at the cited works and discuss them, applying the criteria. Uncle G 13:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Rewritten article has improved with references but they do little more than verify the company's existence. Notability is still the issue and this clearly fails WP:CORP. — Moondyne 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see updated citations within the article showing how the references apply to important statements regarding Ad-Up's history as one of the first banner ad networks with their own AdServer (see early Yahoo listing), evolving and surviving the Internet crash due to their adoption of the 'virtual office' organizational plan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete - UncleG, who is a THOUROUGHLY meticulous admin , is saying that we need to identify HOW this doesn't meet WP:CORP rather than spamming wikilinks and saying "NN!!"Delete and Protect Page - the guy is thouroughly uncivil even when you try to make a quiet remark on his talk page. He's basically assuming BAD faith, and at this point fails WP:DICK. Eliminate drama. NN web company.--Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 05:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. - cite in the article is nothing more than a press release, not independant coverage.
  • sorry, that's incorrect: ClickZ does not publish press releases; it is an independent industry analysis site which researches and verifies services offered by listed companies. Anyway, the listing is cited as support for Ad-Up's evolution from a simple banner network as well as providing one of the "industry indicies" request by other Wikians herein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
  1. - cite and the Entrepreneur cite (first cite) are the same article. The Findarticles link simply is a copy of the Entrepreneur article, which in and of itself is a single mention.
  • OK, removed. The findarticles listing was originally included as backup support for the Entrepreneur listing because their site was occasionally inaccessible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
  1. - NASE , the source for the remaining cite, often publicizes it's members.
  • This is a valid publication with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands. Even if Ad-Up is an NASE member, it doesn't invalidate the fact that this printed magazine was published in 1998 and offers insight into the company. The relative publicity value is irrelevant, since the point is that the article provides reputable, documented evidence which supports the points in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 4 November 2006 .
• All of the above fall under the exemption in WP:CORP that says "Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company" as not being acceptible. It is NOT the 'subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself'. It is NOT 'listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications'. And it certainly is not publically traded. The only thing I can say is that if someone says keep, they need to answer the above and show HOW it does meet WP:CORP. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 15:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • All of these statements are not applicable. None of the articles are based on press releases. Press release based articles all have similar text, usually with no noted author, and appear in multiple sources all around the same time. None of that is the case with any of these references. The referenced articles all came out at different times, over a span of several years, and are each independantly written with a byline attributed to different authors. Each article is on a different aspect of the industry and noted facts about Ad-Up which are relevant to this article. The Wall Street Journal and Entrepreneur Magazine are NOT trivial publications in any way, and as noted above, NASE Magazine, though not as well known, is multi-page glossy four-color printed publication with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands and is not published by Ad-Up nor is it advertising from the company. New citations for industry ranking indices have been added (see references) as well as re-added because someone else deleted them. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE REFERENCES -- THEY ARE ALL VALID & IMPORTANT.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
  • Thank you for addressing the cited works. Uncle G 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • All that being said, it's probably possible to rewrite the article so that it does meet WP:CORP. I'm just a big ol' Deletionist, and spam-ad-cruft and linkspam infuriates me. If the original author was going to expend effort into making the article better, it might be worthy of a rewrite. But as it stands, it needs to go. --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The fact that self-admitted a deletionists, with a pre-biased attitude against any stub article that isn't yet fully fleshed out is proof of nothing except that their stuborn opinion continues to be plastered on worthy and important articles. None of that opinion is relevant to the real facts of this issue. Deletionists -- please apply your attitude where it's really needed, on that list of articles below, all of which have no references whatsoever! Or if you are so inclined, find the relevant research and improve on this article. That is what stubs are for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete. The article still reads like advertising or a business directory entry; to my mind this is an independent ground for deletion, whether or not sources exist: the article still needs to be rewritten from scratch. The quality of the sources seem highly debatable; two are general puff pieces about banner advertising, in which a member of this firm was one of several similarly situated people interviewed. The third seems to be an entry in a directory of online advertising businesses that specifically does not meet WP:CORP. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is it that some Wikians complain there are no references to industry indicies without noticing such references, while others see such references, and complain that these shouldn't be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
  • Again, The Wall Street Journal and Entrepreneur Magazine are NOT trivial publications. That is NOT debateable. The articles are not solely about Ad-Up, so of course other companies and their executives are often quoted within such articles. The subjective opinion label "puff pieces" is also not acurrate, nor revelant -- the point of the cited references is to back up statements in the article, and they clearly do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete Sounds more like an ad then an encyclopedia article. --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 23:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Biased opinion only, not fact. See the references and explain how those are ads.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete per sound reasoning of IUB,KUD. JChap2007 01:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No sound reasoning there -- just deletionist bias against any stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep This article on Ad-Up is being attacked for no legitimate reason, while dozens of other companies (many even in the same type of business) with NO references at all are being completely accepted.

This is a legitimate article about a 10 year old company with relevance to the history of web advertising. Several well-known publications and historical industry references are cited including Entrepreneur magazine, Yahoo, and the online section of the Wall Street Journal.

Many other accepted and uncontested Wikipedia articles about other companies often have even fewer references, yet none these have been questioned at all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BidClix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casale_Media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PointCast_Media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_Fusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicis_Worldwide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_by_the_Seven_Network

Where's all the fuss about those articles? Not a single one of those have ANY references AT ALL!

The referecnes in this Ad-Up article provide the evidence that the company has survived since the early days of the Internet. That in itself is notable. It is also clear Ad-Up has their own AdServing system as early as 1996, which is also important. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.7.156.14 (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2006

Note to closing admin: this editor made his/her 1st edit to Wikipedia on 4 Nov and has only made 4 edits - all to this discussion and to the article. — Moondyne 01:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE to closing admin & Moondyne who if he was really interested in exposing annonymity would reveal his/her real name and connections with the Internet Advertising & SEO industry. Clearly this user has a bias against Ad-Up for no reason other than it must be a competitor of some company he/she has an interest in. Anyway, what's the difference if I sometimes I take the time to log in as chez37 (my ID) and someimes I don't bother because for a quick entry or edit its not worth the hassle so the ID shows up as my IP address -- surely the powers that be can tell it's the same IP and my account so I'm obviously not trying to hide that fact. And why should it matter when I first logged in under any given IP address. This has absolutely ZERO relevance whatsover to the legitimacy of this article. Get a clue folks. Get on the really truly important issues and real spam, not articles with 8 legitimate citations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Chez37, for the record I have no involvement in either Ad-Up or any of its competitors or the SEO industry. I had never even heard of the SEO industry until about 2 weeks ago and certainly had never heard of Ad-Up. Rather than make accusations of foul play, you would do well to assume good faith when a number of other editors give reasons that this article does not meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia. No-one is suggesting the company does not exist - that issue is not being discussed here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and must set parameters as to what is relevant content. Hundreds (possibly thousands) of articles get deleted every day for these very reasons. I've had several of my own deleted so I understand that you may be upset. My advice is to chill out and have a read of some Wikipedia policies and essays like Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. I was going to ask you to declare your own association with Ad-Up but that would be rude and none of my business. — Moondyne 02:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

When people have a blatent, even self-admitted bias against any new, small stub article, or just make lame comments "this reads like an ad" which is purely subjective, unsubstaniated, biased opinion and has absolutely nothing to do with the bottom line, which is this: according to criteria the article need only be the 'subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself' to be admitted. I've already clearly explained that all three (that's multiple) cited publications are legitimate, non-trivial and that they are obviously not from press releases (since the articles are each about several different companies, and each article is about different aspects of the industry, each article is from a different author, and came out at very different times over a period of years. Nor is their source Ad-Up. Quoting an executive of the company within those references doesn't mean the source of the article is the company -- people are quoted all the time by periodical authors who have done their own research. The sources (Wall Street Journal, Entrepreneur Magazine, and NASE Magazine all are hard-copy published magazines with circulations above 6 figures, and all have currently active online accessible versions for easy verification. Since several Wikipedians had previously questioned some of the facts, such as the company's start date and corporate status, citations have also being included which reference very well known and respected industry indicies, such as Alexa, ClickZ, Yahoo, and the California Secretary of State. A total of 8 relevant, legitimate and independant sources have been cited for this Ad-Up article, while numerous other articles for other companies in the same industry with NO REFERENCES at all (see the list above) have been admitted and unquestioned for quite a long time, so clearly there is some BAD FAITH going on with the delete-happy attack here -- it is not assumed, it is obvious. 61.7.156.244 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (Chez37)

Bad faith? Look, I think we need to all take a clear look at the article again so we can GET ON THE SAME PAGE.

1. The Alexa link is worth zero. It shows that the site has been around a while. That does not make it notable. That is "Works carrying merely trivial coverage".

The WP:CORP requires the valid articles are listed in industry indicies. Alexa is exactly such an industry indici. You'll note that many new companies, as well as old companies with no current activity are not listed. Therefore, Alexa is a useful, valid, a respectable guide. 61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Ditto for Archive.org. What is this supposed to show? That it survived since 1996? That is "Works carrying merely trivial coverage".

this is one of 8 references, which ad to the overall coverage showing that the company was established very early in the pioneering days of web advertising (which is in itself notable) and yet has also survived this entire time. Name 10 other web ad companies that can match that description. There are VERY few. 61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Ditto for State of California. Why did you even include these? The question is not "has the company been around a while" but , according to WP:CORP, has anyone noted the company AND has the company DONE anything worth noting.

These citations are included, again, because "industry indicies" are a requirement of WP;CORP -- read it -- it is useful, good info. The State of California is probably the single most reliable and trustworthy source cited. It further establishes that not only was the company started back in July of 1996, but also that it is a California C-Corporation -- NOT a trival LLC, or some small DBA, it is an established, governmentally recognized corporate entity. That alone doesn't make it notable, but it does make it non-trivial. 61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. With ClickZ, again -- read the actual cite. All it's saying is the exact same thing as the Ad-Up Media Kit . The media kit is available [1]. Odd, the titles and gist of what the media kit says matchs ClickZ pretty closely. As stated above, the ClickZ cite is hardly more than a press release.

All this proves is that ClickZ did good research and verified that the company's services matched what the company indeed offers -- this shows honesty on the part of both parties, not a press release. Note that ClickZ does not provide a phone number or email, or even a contact name -- all things one would expect from a press release quote. But anyway, this citation is provided only to show that Ad-Up had evolved at a point before the Internet crash (1999) in a multi-service agency, rather than a simple banner ad network -- and that, even if it did come from a press release is notable, because it is clearly what made that company survive. This is history folks. Don't deny it. Read it. Understand it. Learn from it.

1. WP:CORP says the company must be the subject of multiple non trivial work whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. Now, the Economist cite, is rather flimsy in that regard. But I'll let it slide, even though it does nothing but quote him, and site some figures. We'll say that is a source. Importantly -- the article is from 1998. EIGHT YEARS AGO. I'll come back to that point in a minute.

Clearly you are not alert nor paying attention at all. There is no 'economist cite' -- perhaps you are too busy reading some different entry while poping oxycotins and writing nonsense.61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The WSJ is the infamous furnature quotation. I think people are being unfair on this one. It is actually a good cite, in my opinion. However, it's from 2000.

Please read the entire cited article. It is not about furniture. You kids are missing the whole point. Internet and eBusiness history is built by radical companies that start in strange and different ways. The models of how their businesses succeded are extremely important to the future. If you can only see the furniture in that article, you my poor friend, need to learn to read braile.61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My main point, now, is that all of these articles are six to eight years old, before the collapse of the big 'internet' bubble in toto. There is nothing recent. The company hasn't gotten any coverage over what it's done, over it's partnerships, over opening any new markets, or for new technology. Reading the article, one can't see WHY it's notable. Saying 'it is notable because the cites are relevant' is disinginuous becuase they aren't.

To answer your question: Ad-Up is notable because of at least four reasons: 1) Ad-Up started very early in the web ad business 2) Ad-Up developed its own propreitary AdServer (at a time when Doubleclick was likely it's only competitor) 3) They evolved in advance of the Internet bubble by expanding their services 4) They have survived over 10 years and continue to operate in the present day despite litterally thousands of other similar companies having come and gone.61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What you need is 3 things. You need at least one source from independant media saying something the company has done, and you need to add cites and sources about what they've done. The article claims that the company has bought up and absorbed several other companies -- cites for those?

Those things are not what makes it notable, those are merely facts of interest.61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's very easy to say "you're AfDing my article in bad faith blah blah blah". Saying Moondyne is bad faith voting delete is . . . well . . . bad faith. As for the other articles you mentioned, SOME actually have *gasp* cites about things they DID that were noteworthy. The rest, well, I've already got a speedy template on one....more to follow. Adcruft. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 21:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

this entry is incomprehensible. 61.7.156.24 23:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article has been updated so that the citations to the references make their relevance clear. People need to respect these references and stop deleting them, because then others complain there aren't enough references. None of the referenced articles are from press releases; they all came out at different times, over a span of several years, and indeed all of the articles refer to multiple other companies because their topics relate to industry issues, unlike a press release which would be solely about just the one company. If there's any remaining issues, please read the entire references *fully* again -- Ad-Up is mentioned several times in each article, and none of them are about 'funriture'. Keep in mind that any company listed in Wiki is going to appear like an ad, especially if the company offers marketing services. However, given the number of references cited in this article compared to the list of other wiki company articles above that each have NO REFERENCES WHATSOEVER, its seems their deletioist efforts are better focused on those entries, and leave this demonstrably well-researched article in place as it should be. Wiki delete happy folks, please... move on -- there are plenty of other articles much more deserving of your attention (start with the list just above). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chez37 (talk • contribs) .

Left comments on user's talk page. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 23:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The references in the article are trivial coverage. The company is non-notable. -Bogsat 13:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Basis please. Merely opining that coverage is trivial is trivial. Be specific. Read the comments above; there is significant evidence the coverage above is NON-trivial -- refute it or save your posts for /dev/null —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.7.156.24 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2006

Thank you for the thoughts. As is pointed out the article has eight references. References 1, 3, 4, and 5 indicate that Ad-Up is in Marina Del Rey that has had a web site for about 10 years. This does not meet criteria at WP:CORP. These are not published works (such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations), ranking indices of important companies, or show it on a stock market index. The other four references 2, 6, 7, and 8 are articles with trivial coverage of Ad-up. These are my thoughts but I could be wrong. On separate note I think your comments above about poping oxycotins and learn to read braile are inappropriate. Do you have a vested interest in the article or Ad-up? -Bogsat 03:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I strongly suspect Chez is 61.7.156.24. He already said he didn't really like signing in. 61.7.156.24 has put AfD tags (incorrectly done, to my vast amusement, leave the deletion process to professional deletionists, please) on the articles that Chez mentioned. More to the point, 'industry indices' do *not* include Alexa. Your entire response to my points was obtuse to the point, insulting, uncivil, and most amusingly, didn't even bother to answer my questions. stop being pointy in your responses, it won't save your article, and you aren't swaying anyone's opinion. Have a nice day, and no, I don't pop 'oxycontins' , but you need to rein in that bad faith and personal attack attitude you got before an admin goes upside your head with a banstick. --Shrieking Harpy ^Talk|Count 14:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Administrative note for the closing admin: please look also at Advertising by the Seven Network, BidClix, Casale Media and PointCast Media. All nominated for AfD in something of an accidental crapflood. All related to this AfD. Delete with, merge with or keep according to consensus on parent article or best judgment. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, does not meet WP:CORP and blatant WP:COI, and the very fact that this is being argued so strenuously by what appear to be company reps only helps underline just how non-notable this company truly is. If the company were notable, the existence (or not) of a neutral POV article on Wikipedia would be a matter of no concern to them whatsoever! The reaction to the original deletion and this AfD only underlines how desperate this company is to (ab)use Wikipedia for free advertising. Xtifr _tälk 01:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this one and all related articles. This company isn't necessarily notable, but it seems like other notable companies are going to get taken down with this one (they should ALL have separate AfDs). --- RockMFR 02:10, 9 November 2006 (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.