Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZEDO

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 keep.-Wafulz 15:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZEDO[edit]

Claims of notability are not backed up by any reliable sources. All references are blogs, press releases, and the company's own website. Closenplay 08:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a 2nd tier ad services vendor, but they mostly operate in the b2b zone and most people have never heard of them. There are 300+ Google News Archive results; founder profiled; 2001 technology profile. Turns up in stories about pop-ups and click fraud (combatting, not committing). --Dhartung | Talk 10:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much everything your Google link returns is either a press releases (PR Newswire) or only a trivial mention. Closenplay 10:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll grant there are a lot of press releases in there, but there are also plenty of real articles: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] etc. Taken together, I'm sure they constitute "multiple independent sources [which could be] cited to establish notability". JulesH 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep the article would benefit from a ce (didn't add the tag in case it gets deleted), but it looks reasonably NPOV and does have some ok sources EyeSerene^TALK 17:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Zedo turned up in a Spybot scan I was running and I wanted to know what it was - this article at least gave me some information. seglea 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shalom ^Hello 06:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of many adware companies to be aware of and well with bounds of WP:CORP and WP:N... Ranma9617 00:41, 6 July 2007 (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.

Relisted November 20, 2007 because article continues not to meet encylcopedic criteria
Please add new comments below this notice.69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of notability are not backed up by any reliable sources. All references are blogs, press releases, and the company's own website. Also, article does not provide any relevant information for people wishing to learn more about the company or its "advertsing" services. I was disappointed with the quaility of this article when trying to learn more about ZEDO as were others (ZEDO talk page).69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to meet WP:CORP. If you are "disappointed with the quality of this article," then improve it. As it stands, I fear your edits divulge a bias against the existence of any mention of this company, for whatever reason. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel my edits are inappropriate and the content that I removed belongs in the wikipedia, please feel free to revert my edits.69.68.125.6 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was not aware that you can start an AfD as anonymous user. I am also not familar with the option to "relist" an article for deletion, because usually is a new AfD started. Anyhow. The reasons why the article should be kept were provided in previous discussions already. I agree that the article is not clean and very "thin". I added the "company-stub" template to indicate its sub-standard quality and early stage in the article development process. I do not recall my edits for this article stub, but your note on my talk page indicates that I did edit the article once hehe. I probably did some general cleaning of very elementary stuff that were more technical and formal in nature. I also removed a number of unnecessary "references" from the stub for the Board Member, the companies clients and its competitors. The stub should be extended with quality content and not with "garbage" like some of the stuff that was in there until now. However, I don't think that the article should be deleted entirely. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this article is not in the early stages of editing, its been in existence for several months.69.68.125.6 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations from the New York Times and The Independent. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]