Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdRoll


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

AdRoll

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My extensive PROD here still applies as the mere few sources (2) listed now are not at all actually convincing since the one book seems to be a company-supplied informational listing and guide and then the Fortune article, now only is not largely focused with them, but whatever is, is simply then trivial and unconvincing PR and such, note how the article actually ends with listing all of their involved clients and investors.... SwisterTwister  talk  05:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Comment – Not !voting at this time, but to clarify, below is a summary of the sources I added to the article. North America1000 06:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1.
 * Note that this content within the book is not based upon company-furnished information whatsoever. The book content is derived from the following source :
 * Finkle, Todd A., Professor of Entrepreneurship, Gonzaga University (2013). "AdRoll: A Case Study of Entrepreneurial Growth". New England Journal of Entrepreneurship. Volume 16, Number 1. 4 pages.
 * 2.


 * Comment sorting out these articles is terrible ... are they notable in advertising? Where of course even the good sources are written like ads because that's all they know how to write. The article needs a serious cleanout, but it's plausible they are notable - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Based on the 4 references currently in the AdRoll section plus the voluminous coverage in advertising and tech trade mags. A significant company in the online advertising field, with more then enough WP:RS material available to help any article cleanup needed.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Simply repeating the Fortune article since it was listed above and is not anything different at all, and this is because the Fortune magazine is literally interviewed information by the company in that it only lists their own business plans and it goes finish with listing clients and investors, that's not independent especially not when the article was actually an interview. The Forbes is then simply a "subscriber contributor", so not an actual employee, and as it is, Forbes is becoming notoriously used by companies to host their own PR, given the fact there will not even always be a staff employee, and instead someone else which often even includes the company person themselves. The SacredHeart link is still questionable because it cannot be guaranteed it was not company-supplied information especially given how it lists a "business-listing page". Although the link says they were a fastest-growing company, we would have still needed other links because one mere link like this, especially coming from a non-news substantial source would still be questionable. The Forbes itself is only a mere 2 paragraph about it, clearly simply stating the general information to know about it, so it's certainly not in-depth. SwisterTwister   talk  16:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument is entirely unconvincing and seems to show a bias that is not appropriate for AFD discussions. I remain with my keep !vote.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Fortune article is a promotional interview, no matter where published, and the rest of the sources are at least equally useless for notability .  Even more important, the article is essentially advertising, and should therefore be deleted even if it were slightly notable. Listing of the really trivial prizes is a fairly reliable indication of promotional  intent. (and, for that matter, very often paid editing, though there's no way to prove  it in this particular case)  DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as corporate spam on a marginally notable company. With the lead opening with:
 * ...privately held global technology company. It provides advertisers retargeting products for cross-platform, cross-device display advertising.


 * the article is not in compliance with WP:NOT and should be deleted. The case study listed above is possibly a fluke and is not an indicator of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noting that the company is "marginally notable". Notable is notable, marginal or not, and means it passes WP:N.   But could you explain what you mean by "possibly a fluke" regarding the case study?  A fluke in that you found a reliable source when you did not expect it?  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I mean "marginally notable" in a pejorative way. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- the article created and extensively edited by an account with no other contributions (Special:Contributions/Dwerboff), so paid editing is highly likely. See WP:BOGOF; let's not encourage the spammers by keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an issue for WP:COIN and/or WP:ANI. It has no bearing on the notability of the article subject, which you yourself have continued to acknowledge is notable.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification -- the article should be deleted both because it's spam and due to the subject being non notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. as promotion for a non notable company. The Awards section is indicative of both -- these extremely minor awards for best local workplace arethe customary way of writing such articles.  DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Duplicate !vote struck. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is patent WP:CORPSPAM. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium and this should not be encouraged, hence a WP:DEL14 delete. The company is is a minor company (whose notability is questionable and is largely inherited due to association with other companies) and is intent on using Wikipedia for promotion. I see no point in encouraging such behaviour. Asking volunteer editors to clean up (WP:BOGOF) is essentially increasing the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2016 (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.