Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdPushup (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. While the recent AfD closing as a keep is a concern, participants here have invalidated the comments there through new analysis not present then. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

AdPushup
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

SPA-recreated Orangemoody article with questionable notability. It has several references, but most of them are blog-like or non-expert reviews, some of them are clearly affiliated or biased. In several of them AdPushup is not the focus, but only mentioned in a short paragraph as example for a trend or with some interview quotes (this is only OK, when the topic-related coverage is in-depth). With the article's history, the quality and reliability of sources should be closely examined. I am not convinced, that the included sources are more than PR coverage, WP:MILL startup reporting and passing mentions. The nomination is obviously not so much about the existence of sources, but about their applicability to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I didn't see the first nomination (no talkpage). But still, a second look shouldn't hurt in this specific case. If such a re-nomination is considered inappropriate, please close it. GermanJoe (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - The only thing notable about the company is that it received a small capital injection. Most of the coverage in reliable souces is trivial. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- MrX 15:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:CORP. It's a small startup, with $600K in funding.  There's not much info available about it.  There's a long discussion in a Google AdSense blog, in which the major participant is from AdPushup and others are telling him his comments are bogus. So it's not notable from either a business or a technical perspective.  If they get another round or two of funding, it might make it on the business side. John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet wp: notaibility and reference are week Shrikanthv (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 02:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 02:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 02:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 02:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - Marginally fails WP:ORGDEPTH. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete but in recognition that the Orangemoody-created version survived AFD with a result of "keep" (vs. a mere "no consensus to delete"), 1) double-check all contributors in that AFD to make sure there are no socks, and if there are none, copy all reliable-source references from the Orangemoody-created version on the talk page of this discussion, so if someone wishes to re-create the page using those sources he can do so. If the previous AFD was tainted by socks (and I'm somewhat suspicious of the IP editor based on another edit he made in the last two months), strike the socks and change 's "keep" close to "results invalidated / post-closure investigation found sock-puppetry" or something similar.  I'm also taking note that the page was deleted as an Orangemoody-deleted page less than 24 hours after the AFD closed. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2015 (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.