Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAASie.co

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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CAASie.co[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article appears to have been written by one of the founders. Doesn't present sufficient reliable secondary sources for verification or to meet guidelines at WP:NCORP. Citing (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article was improved for secondary sources and neutrality. - jaravedffej (talk)
Delete: Agree with the nomination, a lot of references are about partnerships, not about the functions of this company, nor reviews of its activity. An ABN lookup does not constitute a reference. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - significant coverage about the company itself, rather than passing mentions of partnerships etc, appears to be lacking. Therefore I doubt it passes muster for notability. firefly ( t · c ) 06:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – caasie.co has been added as a reference for articles such as Billboard ‎and Out-of-home advertising. If it's not notable then we might want to reconsider whether it's a reliable source. Certes (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the section the section at Billboard because it was rather spammy. The second link is a bit tougher... unfortunately, it's hard to find reliable sources online for articles about advertising because the search results are always a crab bucket of ad firms maximizing their SEO. It's hard to tell when a blog post isn't simply an ad for a particular firm/service (...so hats off to the marketers I suppose).Citing (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2021 (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.