Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adzerk


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Adzerk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Rely on non-credible media sources. Merely Press Release on media. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. No significant coverage by independent media. Total 16 Employee, not publicly listed. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light21 16:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Light2021 (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, mostly press-release and publicity push coverage; only the DNT stuff got genuine third-party coverage for newsworthiness, and that's not enough to swing an article on - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are enough reliable sources available to establish notability, including this and this. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the 2 sole sources listed above are (1) the BizJournals is notorious and confirmed by AfD itself to simply be a local PR-hub for companies to seek and establish PR of itself; the two sources alone are then actually simply what the company's activities are and what the company says about itself, if that's honestly the best sources existing, that's not a convincing article. That's not surprising either considering this is still in fact a newly started company with barely any other substance. SwisterTwister   talk  02:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you object to the BizJournal sourcing, there are other sources that establish notability, such as the New York Observer and TechCrunch. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you really reading those articles or just looking at Weblink they belong to? Leave TechCrunch aside. They are not even a news. and Observer: "Reddit Adopts New Ad System, Adzerk, Allowing Users to Up and Downvote Sidebar Ads" This one? Seriously? does it make it notable here? Light2021 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, seriously. We are not here to judge what independent reliable sources choose to cover, we are here to judge if independent reliable sources have significantly covered a specific topic.   And the bylined article in the Observer is one such instance.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's entirely incorrect. We are absolutely here to judge whether a source is indeed being independent and reliable, on a case by case basis if need be. We are not somehow obliged to put in a piece of blatant churnalism because it appears in a soi-disant RS and then treat said reprocessed press release as if it is A+ first-rate editorially-verified information you can absolutely rely upon. In fact, investigating such questions is one of the things we have AFDs for. Because treating churnalism as editorially-verified totally reliable information is a direct disservice to our readers - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You have not convinced me. The Observer source is significant coverage. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The observer sources doesn't count towards notability per WP:INHERITORG (as it a brief mention of the company in context of a main article about Reddit). It can be used for verification, but not for notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, source is significant coverage of a significant event in company history. INHERITORG does not apply.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Updated September 19th, 2016 - New references have been added, including EFF, Inc.com, and non-promotional news articles on Adzerk's notable stand against NC's HB2 bill (Adzerk is located in Durham, NC). mrshuptrine (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2016 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshuptrine (talk • contribs)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: After this AfD was initiated, and after some earlier !votes, some promotional content was removed from the article (diff, diff, diff) and additional sources were added, some of which do not appear to have been addressed within this discussion (diff, diff). Relisting to allow time for consideration relative to these changes.
 * Comment and analysis - The two sources listed after my comment above are one I examined as it is, and it was PR simply advertising what the company is, their services and what the company has to say about itself, the second link is the same where there was no actual substantial journalism. The Keep vote suggesting that new sources have been added is also simply adding the same sources that simply advertise what the company is about and what it wants to say about itself, not the specific news we need that is both establishing of independent notability and substance. The comment suggests that the news focusing with the HB2 bill are enough, but they are actually not, because it's outweighed the fact the entire article then still looks like a business listing, and to be honest, mentioning what the company's activities are, in this case the HB2 bill, are still advert-like. SwisterTwister   talk  04:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists to promote the business. In addition, sources offered above and in the article are not convincing; they are routine. This is an unremarkable SaaS startup going about its business. The coverage is routine, of funding, customers and partnerships, and minor awards, such as:
 * "In 2015, Adzerk was ranked #262 in Inc. magazine's list of the 5,000 fastest-growing private companies in the United States." (typical of such promotional articles).
 * So delete as it stands. Wikipedia is not a platform for companies' promotional materials. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Among the many sources sufficient to prevent this article from deletion, there is one written by Cory Doctorow. If you think anything Cory has taken the time to write about himself does not meet the very low standards of WP:GNG, please explain how in a reply comment. Doctorow, Cory (September 30, 2015). "Ad server will respect Do-Not-Track headers". Boing Boing. Retrieved October 1, 2015. http://boingboing.net/2015/09/30/ad-network-will-respect-do-not.html. If that wasn't enough to prevent deletion, Adzerk is used by Reddit. http://observer.com/2013/03/reddit-adopts-new-ad-system-adzerk-allowing-users-to-up-and-downvote-ads/. Clearly merits keeping.Mbridge3000 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that you are a new editor. Companies have to pass WP:NCORP and in particular sources need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:INHERITORG. Boing boing is a well known blog WP:SPS and doesn't help towards notability. The article about Reddit using it needs to be discounted per WP:INHERITORG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - This was in fact an established Delete here alone, because the supposed improvements were not actually substantial and they were simply trivial in moving a few things around (the trivial improvements were in fact before and somewhat hours after the nomination, and yet another week has passed, and no actual improvements, that suggests enough by itself), certainly not convincing. What still stays is that none of the Keep votes are either substantiating themselves or are simply reconfirming the same trivial coverage that has been analyzed and listed as unconvincing. Once we become a PR webhost, we're seriously damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  17:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources are thin and many of them do not count towards establishing notability per WP:NCORP. For example, this observer source doesn't count towards notability per WP:INHERITORG as it is a brief mention in context of Reddit. Simply because Reddit is using their service doesn't make it notable. TechCrunch published literally every small news in the tech world, using it for notability would lead to Wikipedia becoming a directory (which goes against WP:NOTDIR). The quality of the sources is pretty bad. I mean this TechCrunch article used an employee as a story source and this cannot establish notability per WP:ORGIND. None of the other sources are good enough and this seriously doesn't merit keeping. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Observer source is significant coverage of an important event in the company history. WP:INHERITORG does not apply and it is not a short mention.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, the usual PR fluff routine to any serious tech startup, masquerading here as reliable sources. Doesn't mean it's not a quality product, but it's not notable yet.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete. The initial article was hopeless promotional, and though a little of the puffery was removed, the added sources are not sufficiently reliable for notability  DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 9 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.