 | Points of interest related to
Advertising on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Stubs |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Advertising. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at
WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at
WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Advertising|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Advertising. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{ transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{ prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:| watch |
Namaste Henry
- Namaste Henry ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Un assiolo ( talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and India. Un assiolo ( talk) 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Not meeting corporate notability, I can only find a database listing [1], their Linkedin and an Imdb profile for some reason. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7, G11, G5, take your pick. It's spam for an unremarkable company, by this week's sockpuppet of Btw Santhosh, and mainly sourced as usual with Santhosh's dire news-skinned blogs.
Wikishovel (
talk)
12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would think "India's largest advertising company" disqualifies it from A7 (though it might not actually be true), and there is some non-advert content, disqualifying it from G11. If it really is a sockpuppet, then of course G5 applies. I was not aware of any alleged sockpuppetry which is why I nominated it at AfD instead of requesting speedy deletion. -- Un assiolo ( talk) 19:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:A7 would apply in my opinion, because the claim of "India's largest advertising company" is simply not credible. But I didn't mean to criticise you for bringing it to AFD: that was a perfectly valid action based on your assumptions. Wikishovel ( talk) 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Only promotional content is there.☆★ Sanjeev Kumar ( talk) 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Obviously promotional content per G11. Haruka Amaranth 02:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Upwave
- Upwave ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Sources are trivial (routine funding announcements), non-independent, or mention the firm only in passing (e.g. for the fact it conducted a survey).
A previous AfD exists under the firm's old name Survata, but the result doesn't seem to hold under modern corporate notability standards: the WSJ source is brief, routine coverage of a funding round, HuffPost is a contributor piece (no editorial oversight) and TechCrunch is... well, TechCrunch. (Yes, I checked for sources under "Survata" as well).
Ordinarily I'd redirect this to List of Y Combinator startups as an alternative to deletion, but given the name change I think it makes the most sense to retarget the existing redirect " Survata" there instead. – Tera tix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and California. – Tera tix ₵ 14:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. An analysis of sources shows the following:
- This in Ad Exchanger doesn't have any content about the company, but at the bottom there's a link to this Announcement in Media Post on the name-change from Survata to Upwave, and this article relies entirely on information and quotes provided by the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
- This in USA Today quotes from a survey conducted by the company. It is a mere mention of the company name, contains no in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
- This in MrWeb regurgitates the exact same announcement as in the Media Post article above, also fails ORGIND
- The first TechCrunch article relies entirely on an interview with their cofounder and CEO, Chris Kelly and other information provided by the company. This is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
- This next TechCrunch article has 3 sentences about the company based on information provided at a "Demo Night". Insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH and also, this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
- This is a Primary Source and is not an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability
- This next from MrWeb is based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
- Finally, the WSJ article is 4 sentences and is based on the company raising a seed round. This is not "Independent Content" nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
- In summary, none of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate any sources that do. HighKing ++ 19:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and stubify, aggressively with great prejudice. "It is the leading Analytics Platform that provides software and data to plan, measure and optimize brand marketing" - holy slop Batman!!!!!!! There are indeed sources here that seem to show at least some notability. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I think that it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do and who funds them. The web is a freaky place with lots of shady players on it, and I feel like anything that helps people more effectively navigate the landscape of endless conglomerates and funding rounds and servers sending data to other servers sending data to other servers is good. The only concern is that these companies may use their Wikipedia articles as a form of advertising, which of course we should not permit.
jp×
g
🗯️
02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
JPxG: which sources do you believe demonstrate notability? I agree that, generally speaking,
it serves the public interest for Wikipedia to document what companies are and what they do
– but to do that in the first place, we need substantive coverage from independent sources to lay the groundwork for an article. – Tera tix ₵ 03:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
JPxG: which sources do you believe demonstrate notability? I agree that, generally speaking,
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survata.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I'm going to disagree with both of the above two comments. Every single article on a company is a burden on the Wikipedia community to ensure it doesn't get turned into an ad. The less notable the company is the harder it is for the community to meet that burden, both because there's less content to base a neutral article on and because fewer people are likely to be watching it. This is the very reason why we have the strict notability guidelines for companies that we do. And since there's been no specific answer to Teratix's question, the argument that it fails them has gone unchallenged. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)