Talk:Oddcast (company)/Archive 1

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because its not a commercial, and these guys gets hordes of coverage for their Super Bowl ads and whatnot, in many different reliable sources. Check the press section of their website to link to these articles.  D r e a m Focus  12:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons given is invalid for a company. ''because it only promotes an entity, person or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Note that having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. If promotional content was simply added to an existing article, do not mark it for speedy deletion; consider marking it with the advert tag instead, or improving the article yourself. See CSD G11.''  D r e a m Focus  12:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... Evaluating because potentially believed notable. Regular PROD if you must. --Milowent • hasspoken 12:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability

 * I added a few sources and removed the CSD tag, this company is clearly notable. What happened here is very troubling.  But happens every day, I am afraid:
 * 1) DreamFocus created a stub which included 2 new york times URL references, and which made a clear notability claim. "Oddcast is an online marketing company that was found in 1999, and whose works have been seen by hundreds of millions of people."  It also listed some of the company's major campaigns with major companies.  The article was no work of art, but it was BRAND NEW.
 * 2) 3 minutes after creation, its tagged as sounding like an advertisement.
 * 3) 15 minutes after creation, Dream removed the advertisement box, with edit summary "doesn't seem like an ad to me. I wrote it from a neutral point of view referencing the New York Times. the external links are to them and their notable work that gets coverage in the New York Times and elsewhere)".
 * 4) 48 minutes after creation, another user removes alleged "peacockery",--which is, namely, the core of the notability claim of the stub, "and whose works they report as having been seen by hundreds of millions of people."
 * 5) 7 hours later, it is now tagged for Speedy Deletion. Why?  Under CSDA7, for no claim of importance!  This is comically sad.
 * 6) About 3 hours later, Dream returns to find this ridiculousness. He posts on the talk page to contest the speedy deletion, but as the article creator he cannot remove the speedy tag.  Now I'm not sure about this, but I believe despite the contest notice the article is still in real jeopardy.  So, Dream posts here for assistance, and luckily because other people know who he is and he's not just some random new editor, I am able to assist.  But in any event, many newby editors will never return in time to contest the CSD - the article will be GONE.
 * Things like this should not happen. This is exactly what drives new editors off wikipedia. And as to established editors, shouldn't someone at least check who the article creator is before marking something as CSD?  Can't there be some tool for that?
 * The problem demonstrated by this experience is common-what can we do about it?--Milowent • hasspoken 14:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider Deletion of newly created pages and the template. I fully agree with your comments above. My technique to avoid this situation is to create a new article on my talk page, polish it there, and only move it to mainspace when I am confident I have a well done article, usually of Start class. Sometimes I even start in MS Word, and move to my talk page later, when I have my inline citations done.  --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At the point I added the CSD the article stated Oddcast is a marketing company founded in '99 and listed 4 clients. Of the 3 references, two were attached to the clients, and the reference attached to Oddcast was a self-ref. Notability is not inherited, and what's left without the client list makes no assertion of notability. As for your questions....
 * shouldn't someone at least check who the article creator is before marking something as CSD - No. New Page patrol evaluates the new pages, not their authors. On the basis of the article as I stood at that time, I'd CSD again.
 * Can't there be some tool for that? There is, Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. You both already have it. Nominate DreamFocus if you wish, as you claim you have knowledge of his history. I don't know him, and I'm not inclined to nominate someone who was blocked just last week. Bazj (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * uh, yeah, the block thing, that's a whole political mess, but thanks for that suggestion, that's a good idea. the comedy of errors here led to the claims of notability being removed from the article by the time you first saw it.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)