677:- The two sources listed after my comment above are one I examined as it is, and it was PR simply advertising what the company is, their services and what the company has to say about itself, the second link is the same where there was no actual substantial journalism. The Keep vote suggesting that new sources have been added is also simply adding the same sources that simply advertise what the company is about and what it wants to say about itself, not the specific news we need that is both establishing of independent notability and substance. The comment suggests that the news focusing with the HB2 bill are enough, but they are actually not, because it's outweighed the fact the entire article then still looks like a business listing, and to be honest, mentioning what the company's activities are, in this case the HB2 bill, are still advert-like.
861:- This was in fact an established Delete here alone, because the supposed improvements were not actually substantial and they were simply trivial in moving a few things around (the trivial improvements were in fact before and somewhat hours after the nomination, and yet another week has passed, and no actual improvements, that suggests enough by itself), certainly not convincing. What still stays is that none of the Keep votes are either substantiating themselves or are simply reconfirming the same trivial coverage that has been analyzed and listed as unconvincing. Once we become a PR webhost, we're seriously damned as an encyclopedia.
73:
551:
because it appears in a soi-disant RS and then treat said reprocessed press release as if it is A+ first-rate editorially-verified information you can absolutely rely upon. In fact, investigating such questions is one of the things we have AFDs for. Because treating churnalism as editorially-verified
312:
Rely on non-credible media sources. Merely Press
Release on media. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. No significant coverage by independent media. Total 16 Employee, not publicly listed. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet
789:
Among the many sources sufficient to prevent this article from deletion, there is one written by Cory
Doctorow. If you think anything Cory has taken the time to write about himself does not meet the very low standards of WP:GNG, please explain how in a reply comment. Doctorow, Cory (September 30,
758:; the article exists to promote the business. In addition, sources offered above and in the article are not convincing; they are routine. This is an unremarkable SaaS startup going about its business. The coverage is routine, of funding, customers and partnerships, and minor awards, such as:
508:
Are you really reading those articles or just looking at
Weblink they belong to? Leave TechCrunch aside. They are not even a news. and Observer: "Reddit Adopts New Ad System, Adzerk, Allowing Users to Up and Downvote Sidebar Ads" This one? Seriously? does it make it notable here?
454:
as the 2 sole sources listed above are (1) the BizJournals is notorious and confirmed by AfD itself to simply be a local PR-hub for companies to seek and establish PR of itself; the two sources alone are then actually simply what the company's activities are and what the company
901:
as it is a brief mention in context of Reddit. Simply because Reddit is using their service doesn't make it notable. TechCrunch published literally every small news in the tech world, using it for notability would lead to
Knowledge (XXG) becoming a directory (which goes against
523:
Yup, seriously. We are not here to judge what independent reliable sources choose to cover, we are here to judge if independent reliable sources have significantly covered a specific topic. And the bylined article in the
Observer is one such instance. --
281:
641:
Updated
September 19th, 2016 - New references have been added, including EFF, Inc.com, and non-promotional news articles on Adzerk's notable stand against NC's HB2 bill (Adzerk is located in Durham, NC).
459:, if that's honestly the best sources existing, that's not a convincing article. That's not surprising either considering this is still in fact a newly started company with barely any other substance.
234:
80:
331:
per nom, mostly press-release and publicity push coverage; only the DNT stuff got genuine third-party coverage for newsworthiness, and that's not enough to swing an article on -
389:
409:
369:
349:
958:, the usual PR fluff routine to any serious tech startup, masquerading here as reliable sources. Doesn't mean it's not a quality product, but it's not notable yet.
765:"In 2015, Adzerk was ranked #262 in Inc. magazine's list of the 5,000 fastest-growing private companies in the United States." (typical of such promotional articles).
547:
here to judge whether a source is indeed being independent and reliable, on a case by case basis if need be. We are not somehow obliged to put in a piece of blatant
275:
971:
The initial article was hopeless promotional, and though a little of the puffery was removed, the added sources are not sufficiently reliable for notability
942:
613:
576:
534:
932:
Observer source is significant coverage of an important event in the company history. WP:INHERITORG does not apply and it is not a short mention. --
933:
604:
567:
525:
589:(as it a brief mention of the company in context of a main article about Reddit). It can be used for verification, but not for notability. --
241:
89:
894:
795:
487:
430:
119:
17:
665:
907:
491:
434:
105:
704:
1001:
40:
715:
After this AfD was initiated, and after some earlier !votes, some promotional content was removed from the article (
603:
Incorrect, source is significant coverage of a significant event in company history. INHERITORG does not apply. --
296:
263:
207:
202:
78:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
211:
727:) and additional sources were added, some of which do not appear to have been addressed within this discussion (
151:
874:
690:
472:
194:
898:
837:
829:
653:
586:
135:
109:
919:
845:
594:
557:
397:
377:
357:
336:
821:
486:
If you object to the BizJournal sourcing, there are other sources that establish notability, such as the
94:
997:
803:
791:
775:
740:
661:
499:
442:
414:
257:
36:
799:
657:
647:
643:
796:
http://observer.com/2013/03/reddit-adopts-new-ad-system-adzerk-allowing-users-to-up-and-downvote-ads/
53:
862:
678:
514:
460:
318:
289:
253:
911:
903:
836:
and doesn't help towards notability. The article about Reddit using it needs to be discounted per
825:
198:
141:
72:
982:
962:
946:
923:
890:
879:
849:
817:
807:
779:
770:
So delete as it stands. Knowledge (XXG) is not a platform for companies' promotional materials.
755:
744:
695:
617:
598:
580:
561:
538:
518:
503:
477:
446:
418:
401:
381:
361:
340:
322:
56:
915:
841:
790:
2015). "Ad server will respect Do-Not-Track headers". Boing Boing. Retrieved
October 1, 2015.
590:
553:
393:
373:
353:
332:
303:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
996:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
771:
495:
438:
190:
62:
833:
914:. None of the other sources are good enough and this seriously doesn't merit keeping. --
959:
889:
The sources are thin and many of them do not count towards establishing notability per
510:
314:
978:
910:
article used an employee as a story source and this cannot establish notability per
269:
169:
157:
125:
228:
104:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
429:
There are enough reliable sources available to establish notability, including
548:
566:
You have not convinced me. The
Observer source is significant coverage. --
973:
794:. If that wasn't enough to prevent deletion, Adzerk is used by Reddit.
735:). Relisting to allow time for consideration relative to these changes.
552:
totally reliable information is a direct disservice to our readers -
792:
http://boingboing.net/2015/09/30/ad-network-will-respect-do-not.html
990:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
67:
707:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
98:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
313:
notability criteria. Light21 16:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
585:
The observer sources doesn't count towards notability per
906:). The quality of the sources is pretty bad. I mean this
88:
among
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
816:
I see that you are a new editor. Companies have to pass
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
224:
220:
216:
288:
738:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
302:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1004:). No further edits should be made to this page.
390:list of Advertising-related deletion discussions
410:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
370:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
350:list of Software-related deletion discussions
118:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
408:Note: This debate has been included in the
388:Note: This debate has been included in the
368:Note: This debate has been included in the
348:Note: This debate has been included in the
651:
407:
387:
367:
347:
92:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
112:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
820:and in particular sources need to pass
897:doesn't count towards notability per
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
832:. Boing boing is a well known blog
650:) 03:21, 19 September 2016 (EST)
543:That's entirely incorrect. We are
24:
71:
780:03:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
745:12:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
696:04:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
504:00:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
478:02:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
447:01:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
419:17:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
402:16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
382:16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
362:16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
341:16:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
323:14:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
108:on the part of others and to
57:10:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
983:03:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
963:04:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
947:05:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
939:...........................
924:03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
880:17:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
850:03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
808:17:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
618:05:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
610:...........................
599:03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
581:19:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
573:...........................
562:19:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
539:18:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
531:...........................
519:18:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
1021:
798:. Clearly merits keeping.
993:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
150:; accounts blocked for
120:single-purpose accounts
90:policies and guidelines
893:. For example, this
675:Comment and analysis
102:by counting votes.
81:not a majority vote
713:Relisting comment:
747:
669:
656:comment added by
488:New York Observer
457:says about itself
421:
404:
384:
364:
183:
182:
179:
106:assume good faith
54:Black Kite (talk)
1012:
995:
938:
877:
872:
743:
737:
710:
708:
693:
688:
609:
572:
530:
475:
470:
417:
307:
306:
292:
244:
232:
214:
177:
165:
149:
133:
114:
84:, but instead a
75:
68:
34:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1002:deletion review
991:
934:
895:observer source
875:
863:
748:
739:
703:
701:
691:
679:
605:
568:
526:
473:
461:
413:
249:
240:
205:
189:
167:
155:
139:
123:
110:sign your posts
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1018:
1016:
1007:
1006:
986:
985:
966:
952:
951:
950:
949:
927:
926:
883:
882:
855:
854:
853:
852:
811:
810:
783:
782:
768:
767:
766:
760:
759:
736:
711:
700:
699:
698:
671:
670:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
481:
480:
449:
423:
422:
405:
385:
365:
344:
343:
310:
309:
246:
185:
181:
180:
76:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1017:
1005:
1003:
999:
994:
988:
987:
984:
980:
976:
975:
970:
967:
964:
961:
957:
954:
953:
948:
944:
940:
937:
931:
930:
929:
928:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
900:
899:WP:INHERITORG
896:
892:
888:
885:
884:
881:
878:
873:
870:
866:
860:
857:
856:
851:
847:
843:
839:
838:WP:INHERITORG
835:
831:
830:WP:INHERITORG
827:
823:
819:
815:
814:
813:
812:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
788:
785:
784:
781:
777:
773:
769:
764:
763:
762:
761:
757:
753:
750:
749:
746:
742:
741:North America
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
709:
706:
697:
694:
689:
686:
682:
676:
673:
672:
667:
663:
659:
655:
649:
645:
640:
637:
636:
619:
615:
611:
608:
602:
601:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:WP:INHERITORG
584:
583:
582:
578:
574:
571:
565:
564:
563:
559:
555:
550:
546:
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
529:
522:
521:
520:
516:
512:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
484:
483:
482:
479:
476:
471:
468:
464:
458:
453:
450:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
425:
424:
420:
416:
415:North America
411:
406:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
383:
379:
375:
371:
366:
363:
359:
355:
351:
346:
345:
342:
338:
334:
330:
327:
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
305:
301:
298:
295:
291:
287:
283:
280:
277:
274:
271:
268:
265:
262:
259:
255:
252:
251:Find sources:
247:
243:
239:
236:
230:
226:
222:
218:
213:
209:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
187:
186:
175:
171:
163:
159:
153:
147:
143:
137:
131:
127:
121:
117:
113:
111:
107:
101:
97:
96:
91:
87:
83:
82:
77:
74:
70:
69:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
992:
989:
972:
968:
955:
935:
916:Lemongirl942
886:
868:
864:
858:
842:Lemongirl942
822:WP:CORPDEPTH
786:
751:
712:
702:
684:
680:
674:
652:— Preceding
638:
606:
591:Lemongirl942
569:
554:David Gerard
544:
527:
466:
462:
456:
451:
426:
394:David Gerard
374:David Gerard
354:David Gerard
333:David Gerard
328:
311:
299:
293:
285:
278:
272:
266:
260:
250:
237:
184:
173:
161:
152:sockpuppetry
145:
134:; suspected
129:
115:
103:
99:
93:
85:
79:
49:
47:
31:
28:
800:Mbridge3000
772:K.e.coffman
658:Mrshuptrine
644:mrshuptrine
496:Safehaven86
439:Safehaven86
276:free images
908:TechCrunch
549:churnalism
545:absolutely
492:TechCrunch
86:discussion
998:talk page
960:Lankiveil
912:WP:ORGIND
904:WP:NOTDIR
826:WP:ORGIND
511:Light2021
315:Light2021
142:canvassed
136:canvassed
95:consensus
37:talk page
1000:or in a
891:WP:NCORP
818:WP:NCORP
756:WP:PROMO
705:Relisted
666:contribs
654:unsigned
235:View log
174:username
168:{{subst:
162:username
156:{{subst:
146:username
140:{{subst:
130:username
124:{{subst:
39:or in a
969:Delete.
859:Comment
282:WP refs
270:scholar
208:protect
203:history
138:users:
956:Delete
936:1Wiki8
887:Delete
871:wister
867:wister
834:WP:SPS
752:Delete
687:wister
683:wister
607:1Wiki8
570:1Wiki8
528:1Wiki8
469:wister
465:wister
452:Delete
329:Delete
254:Google
212:delete
191:Adzerk
63:Adzerk
50:delete
979:talk
639:Keep:
427:Keep:
297:JSTOR
258:books
242:Stats
229:views
221:watch
217:links
116:Note:
16:<
943:talk
920:talk
876:talk
846:talk
840:. --
828:and
804:talk
787:Keep
776:talk
754:per
733:diff
729:diff
725:diff
721:diff
717:diff
692:talk
662:talk
648:talk
614:talk
595:talk
577:talk
558:talk
535:talk
515:talk
500:talk
490:and
474:talk
443:talk
435:this
433:and
431:this
398:talk
378:talk
358:talk
337:talk
319:talk
290:FENS
264:news
225:logs
199:talk
195:edit
974:DGG
304:TWL
233:– (
170:csp
166:or
158:csm
126:spa
100:not
52:.
981:)
945:)
922:)
848:)
824:,
806:)
778:)
731:,
723:,
719:,
668:)
664:•
616:)
597:)
579:)
560:)
537:)
517:)
502:)
494:.
445:)
437:.
412:.
400:)
392:.
380:)
372:.
360:)
352:.
339:)
321:)
284:)
227:|
223:|
219:|
215:|
210:|
206:|
201:|
197:|
176:}}
164:}}
154::
148:}}
132:}}
122::
977:(
965:.
941:(
918:(
869:T
865:S
844:(
802:(
774:(
685:T
681:S
660:(
646:(
612:(
593:(
575:(
556:(
533:(
513:(
498:(
467:T
463:S
441:(
396:(
376:(
356:(
335:(
317:(
308:)
300:·
294:·
286:·
279:·
273:·
267:·
261:·
256:(
248:(
245:)
238:·
231:)
193:(
178:.
172:|
160:|
144:|
128:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
