Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdBrite


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

AdBrite

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Another online advertising network, one among numerous. The claim of significance is the peak of 2% of the advertising market in 2008. Though search gives quite a lot of results, I failed to spot anything apart of routine deals reports, HowTos, etc. Overall I see no but notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Here is the coverage from Bloomberg Businessweek.  "Routine" coverage is the kind of coverage that Obama gets, and means that a topic passes WP:GNG, and is one that we want to cover on Wikipedia.  WP:ROUTINE is an issue for WP:NOT events, and AdBrite is not an event.  Next, Wikipedia may or may not cover "significant topics", we cover topics that get sufficiently significant attention from the world at large–as per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  Next, arguing that a topic is "one of numerous" appears to be an argumentum ad numerum fallacy, because it not specific about the coverage for this topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep. Clearly passes the general, web and corp notability guidelines.  Perhaps a good application of WP:BEFORE - try google news.  Full articles devoted to them or their executives in NY Times, LA Times, WS Journal, CNN, etc.  This was a significant dot com startup that received several rounds of venture finance, had well known executives, and made quite a splash.  An encyclopedic knowledge of the online advertising world would not be complete without knowing about this company.  They were perhaps the #3 or #4 in their heyday, but #1 for aggregating the specialized market of smaller publishers.  It would be like covering the field of American automobiles without mentioning Jeep.  Anyway, hundreds of major media sources including plenty of articles devoted to this company specifically. Wikidemon (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All of these sources No inherited notability (as they are not on company) with an exception of NYT article which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. With such sources it is more of snowball delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They absolutely are on the company. Have you read them?  What do you think they're talking about, Chocolate pudding? - Wikidemon (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. Did you?
 * 2-paragraph (67 words) report on investment into AdBrite.
 * About Philip J. Kaplan (see depth of coverage criterion #12).
 * Interview with Kaplan (see independence of source criteria #7-8).
 * A 473-word article about advertising on Facebook with AdBrite discussed among 4 advertising companies as potentially second successful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. You're being silly here, and I wonder if you know what makes a software service notable.  Saying that an article about a company's services, management, performance, and competitive position doesn't make the company notable because it isn't about the company is like saying that an article about a sports figure's olympic performance doesn't establish their notability because it isn't about them. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, this article is not about service, it's about company. Next, if market share at all adds to notability (relevant policy/guideline, please), definitely only significant market share would help, not the peak of 2% once in a lifetime. Third, "article about a company's services, management, performance, and competitive position" makes the company notable if two conditions are met: there is significant depth of description of the subject (service, person, product) in context of this particular company AND this articles allows to conclude that the services, business strategies or products (respectively) are somehow unique to this company. Otherwise this article doesn't help with this particular company's notability, but shows the notability of the kind of business activity. Fourth, non of above applies to these sources, as they do have the significant flows of either being to closely related to the company or lacking depth of coverage. In fact, all one can conclude from them is that AdBrite was founded, received investments, hired at least one employee, tried earning on Facebook and made several mobile apps. This is the generic image of nearly every modern day venture-backed company; even AdBrite's founder wouldn't guess the company's name from this description. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article is incomplete it should be improved, not deleted. Your reasoning  further suggests you don't seem to understand about online software service companies.  The company is the service.  It exists to offer a single service.   Do you really think LinkedIn the company is a different subject than LinkedIn the website / software service?  Or Yelp, Twitter, etc?  It's not as if Adbrite is Sony, selling everything from toys to feature films to financial services... or Microsoft or even Yahoo!  Your assessment of notability depth is obviously at odds with the guidelines, which simply require significant depth of coverage in major sources.  These are business publications and columns that write 300-500 word articles, not tomes.  Here, entire articles in mass circulation periodicals are written about Adbrite, or about specific things about Adbrite.  The bottom line is this, for a reader to be educated about the online advertising market in the mid 2000s must know about Adbrite, without knowing about Adbrite their understanding of the topic is incomplete.  That's why I brought up the Jeep example.  Jeep had about 2% share of all US automobiles and wasn't doing anything unique for most of its existence.  But if you asked someone what they knew about the industry and they had no awareness of Jeep they would be pretty clueless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 18:52, 3 August 2012

LinkedIn company isn't notable. As well as nearly every company behind web service. And yes, I am confident that company and its product are different subjects, regardless of amount of products, their type, etc. And even regardless of the common name. Think of Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Jeep is notable, but definitely not for its market share. More precisely, Jeep is notable as a brand name with a company behind it being a by-product in context of Wikipedia article. But AdBrite isn't notable neither as service, nor as company. They both are completely indistinguishable from their parent subjects (advertising services and companies behind such services respectively), and neither of them can't be covered in separate article, as there is nothing to cover that wouldn't be more appropriate in online advertising and advertising agency respectively. The completeness of readers' knowledge on topic can be simply addressed by adding "AdBrite" to the "Examples" sections of these articles. BTW, yellow pages of advertising market are not within the scope of Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per:
 * Boudica's Way in the snow - geograph.org.uk - 1656881.jpg
 * Washington Post article
 * San Francisco Business Times article
 * CNET News article
 * Techcrunch article
 * The New York Times article
 * Los Angeles Times article
 * ''Wall Street Journal” article
 * CNN article
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 07:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how these pass WP:CORPDEPTH. And even if so, WP:MILL (WP:NOT in essence) applies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CORPDEPTH says, "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." The nomination indicates that there is routine coverage for this topic, which if true the depth of the coverage doesn't need to be considered for WP:CORPDEPTH to be satisfied.  WP:MILL is an essay where one of the examples is that of a bank that has been in the news five times in 30 years for being robbed.  Is AdBrite like a bank that has been in the news five times in 30 years for being robbed?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The point of the bank example is that it mentioned with no regard to its primary activity. I wonder, how did you manage to pick this example without reading the essay and seeing the picture, which is probably a self-contained explanation of the whole essay and of the reason why this company (AdBrite) is not worth mention? Eg., paragraph 5 clearly states that topics without unique traits are essentially directory entries (WP:NOTDIR?). Note, Wikipedia essays are not just liberally licensed works of literature, they are the advises on applications of particular policies.
 * Next, WP:CORPDEPTH reads:
 * As all of the coverage is trivial and/or incidental, these sources are effectively useless for the purpose of determining notability. So we are back in square zero, and no sources in our disposal to establish notability of this company, even if we reject the advise of WP:MILL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If "all of the coverage is trivial and/or incidental" then is the first sentence from Bloomberg Businessweek trivial or is it incidental? The sentence is, "AdBrite, Inc. operates an Internet advertising exchange platform for companies, advertising agencies, demand side platforms, real time bidders, advertising networks, and publishers."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Both. It's trivial as it trivially reports the market business operates in and it is incidental as it is a leading sentence of the indiscriminatory collection of companies' profiles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, "a report of the market that a business operates in" bears no relation to the WP:CORP examples of "trivial coverage". Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At least similar profile pages of software a routinely attributed as trivial coverage in AfD discussions. Don't think that companies should enjoy any special privileges in this regard. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At least similar profile pages of software a routinely attributed as trivial coverage in AfD discussions. Don't think that companies should enjoy any special privileges in this regard. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - the references highlighted by Northamerica1000 clearly show notability of the company. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)  14:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * May it happen that your vote is influenced by your professional affiliation with the industry? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Eclipsed discloses no professional affiliation with the industry. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean that Alex Konanykhin, KMGi (advertising agency), Silvina Moschini, TransparentBusiness and WikiExperts.us (and Eclipsed him/herself when paid editing) are unrelated to advertising? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean all of it. There's no connection between the editor and Adbrite.  You're grasping at straws.  Next thing you know, chefs can't contribute to food articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a clear connection between the editor and advertising, which obviously influences his attitude towards advertising. I appreciate Eclipsed's contributions to the articles he has COI in, as he writes high-quality engaging articles it is pleasure to read. Still, this doesn't mean that he is neutral enough towards the topic to be able to !vote in unbiased way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This didn't particularly need to be relisted. Consensus is very clear in this discussion. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With only 4 comments it doesn't seem much of a clear consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also note, that no policy-based !votes (as opposed to votes in off-site meaning) were made at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's certainly true on the "If you disagree with me, you must be disregarding policy" theory, or are you referring to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I spent quite a lot of time explaining why your position goes against WP:NCORP, and I (mistakenly, as I see now) took the fact that you vanished from discussion for your understanding of the issue. Still, I'm not sure there is any sense to reiterate that, and I have no means to explain the text that is quite obvious without my explanation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not the issue. You made a bad nomination of an article about a clearly notable company that obviously meets the notability criteria, you either don't understand notability as it applies to tech companies or you're advocating for a change in the standards that if implemented would get rid of a good deal of our encyclopedic coverage of the industry, and it looks like you're refusing to lose an argument gracefully.  If it's as obvious as you say, you can simply state your position like everyone else, let other editors state theirs, and leave it to the closing administrator to weigh everything.  Instead you've followed up every contrary argument with a counterargument or attempt at wikilawyering, in some cases dismissively and insultingly, and are insisting on having the last word on _each_ _single_ _comment_ here.  In contested deletion discussions that's a recipe for a mess.  How about we disengage.  If you don't keep announcing that nobody here has made a policy-based argument, or that I don't understand notability, I won't be tempted to respond.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I relisted the discussion because, though the consensus might be leaning towards keep at the moment, it's not incredibly strong. In terms of the arguments present, I wasn't entirely convinced that the consensus was strong enough to close the discussion there and then (I'm not just counting votes; both sides have made creditable arguments on an issue yet to be resolved). I don't think an extra week of discussion would do any harm; hopefully the consensus will be clearer then. If another admin wants to close this earlier, I have no objections. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rational clarification, and happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 12:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.