Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buysellads


 * 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. Big Dom  20:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Buysellads

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Online advertising/marketing company which does not meet WP:NCORP. The article has been speedily deleted a couple of times (as Buysellads and BuySellAds) over the last month as an A7; I believe that the current article (which does not have the same creator as the previous versions) is essentially identical to the deleted articles, but as it claims marginal notability it might not be considered to be eligible for speedy deletion.

There are several references but nothing that constitutes substantial coverage in a reliable source, much less multiple reliable sources. The tone is promotional, which could be fixed, but the lack of notability is harder to get around. bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * DELETE A quick view of the sources makes it pretty clear that this doesn't meet notability guidelines and verges on spam. Not a speedy delete, but not notable and changing the tone can't fix that.  Dennis Brown (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly Thank you for letting me know that there are changes to be made in order to improve the article. I request you to kindly guide me on the references as to references from which kind site do make the article notable as there is being a problem which the references already mentioned.Also wanted to know which tag i had to include in order to request other senior users to help me on the notability of this page.In the meanwhile i too will see if i can find better references. Thank you Venomarv (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another online business.  Unambiguous self-promotion: In less than 3 years the company managed to build a strong reputation among the web design and development vertical and at the beginning of 2011 the company's inventory counts around 3,000 successful publishers selling ads and 2,000+ quality advertisers who use BSA to target the audiences that are right for their brand. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. will remove that section from the page. Anything else that sounds self promotional will also be removed from the page.Please do guide. Thank you again. Venomarv (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I deleted that part and edited very careful the rest of the page in order to avoid any kind of confusion.Have removed all the self promotional artifacts to improve the neutrality of the article.Please do provide me with a feedback whether there is anything else to be done. Thank you. Venomarv (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete for lack of sufficient independent coverage by reliable sources. The page does list one article from a Reliable Source, the Boston Herald, but notability requires more than one article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Have added linkages from other wiki articles to counter the status of orphan article even though it is not a criteria for deletion according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan. Also have added two new links to improve the notability. Further feedback will be appreciated. Thank you Venomarv (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are trying very hard, I'll give you that. But there just may not be enough material out there to cite, no matter how hard you try. You are correct that the article will not be deleted for being an orphan; if it is deleted it will be for lack of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia's notability requirements. I noticed you have a second reference at the article from a Reliable Source, namely the Wall Street Journal Online, but the article doesn't even mention BuySellAds that I could find, so it doesn't help you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2011 (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.