Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MochiAds


 * 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   merge to Mochi Media.  So Why  14:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

MochiAds

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I had placed a Prod on the page and it was removed, so here we discuss. The entire page consists of five lines, the first stating that it's an ad app for browser games. Second line on when/where ads can be shown, third - alternative locations. Fourth and fifth lines are links to purchase ads. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note The reason I brought this up for AfD and not merge is because this clearly fails WP:PRODUCT on notability and context, but there isn't a company page to merge to. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Disclaimer: I created the article. I know it's not an advertisement: I am a user of the company's services as a developer, but I do not work for them. The reference link it merely that; a reference. It would be the act of a very desperate sales team to canvas Wikipedia with such links and expect them to result in a single sale. The other link is to the company's *front page*, which is clearly appropriate. You suggested that it was a non-notable company in your original deletion request. It is important to do cursory searches before making such claims. Here are some respectable third party references to the company:, , . Wlwwybrn (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--Besides the first link given above I found one other somewhat meaningful mention of the company, also in the Guardian--by the same author, and just as brief. (The other two references do not impress me at all, providing, as they do, only passing mention.) So I feel there is not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability--a point which the nominator should have addressed in the first place, since the article isn't that spammy. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reuters, Gamasutra, CNET, ~458,000 results in Google for the term "MochiAds". Speak to anybody even barely connected to the online games industry and they will know the company. Look at the advertisers buying stock. Ads are by big companies: Virgin, Orange, the UK government, Universal Pictures, CBS, Microsoft... it is really hard to play down the notability of this one in any believable way. Wlwwybrn (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but merge/redirect to a new article called Mochi Media The sources provided by Wlwwybrn prove that Mochi Media passes WP:CORP. The Reuters article is a press release, but the Gamasutra and CNET articles provide significant coverage of this company &mdash; enough to pass the notability guidelines. MochiAd appears to be only notable in the context of Mochi Media, so this article should be merged instead of deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move/merge. Company is notable, product is nt by itself. Mention product in company article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that the company's operations are almost entirely based around MochiAds, can this really be accurate? I would argue that people know of MochiAds more than they know of MochiMedia. MochiMedia is almost always mentioned in terms of MochiAds. Wlwwybrn (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2009 (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.