Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmatic media


 * 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. And salt.  Sandstein  09:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Programmatic media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Online Advertising and the articles in that hierarchy. Note the article creator has created 200+ redirects to this article, likely for SEO purposes. J bh Talk  20:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  20:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  20:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment suggest that all the redirects (Programmatic media inventory Programmatic media suppliers Programmatic media agency Programmatic media company Programmatic media uk Programmatic media us Programmatic media france  Programmatic media germany Programmatic media spain Programmatic media italy Programmatic media netherlands Programmatic media india Programmatic advertising inventory Programmatic marketing inventoryProgrammatic advertising suppliers Programmatic marketing suppliers Programmatic media owner  Programmatic marketing agency Programmatic advertising agency Programmatic advertising company... and over 100 more) be added to this AfD. John Nagle (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know how to bundle all of those. Can it be done by reference or is there something else that needs to be done? J bh  Talk  21:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If this article is deleted, the redirects will likely be deleted by the closing admin. If they aren't, they can be tagged for G8 speedy deletion.  At any rate, you can't really bundle redirects at WP:AFD.  If this article survives deletion, you could nominate the redirects for deletion at WP:RFD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. J bh  Talk  22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete those redirects, rename this article to something that makes sense ("Programmatic media" doesn't, "programmatic media something" would: Google Books gives the most hits to "programmatic advertising", then "programmatic marketing", and then "programmatic media buying"), and fix the pretty obvious WP:OWN (and WP:COI? because seriously...) issues in some way. I'll probably develop an opinion over deleting the article itself later. LjL (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an issue from WP:AN/I. Most of the material is covered, and better, at Online Advertising and the articles linked from that main subject page. It's a poor explaination of the subject.  (For a readable one, see this Gizmodo article: ). The huge number of useless redirects are just keyword stuffing/link spam. The article has many references, some of which may be promotional links.  WP:REDUNDANTFORK applies, as mentioned above.  Time to take out the trash. John Nagle (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a concern that we'd be deleting a term that is, or appears to be, actually used in literature (see above), and which is not mentioned at Online advertising ("mentioning" it may be easy, of course, but are we quite sure the topic is looked at from the same perspective that "programmatic media whatever" looks at it? I'm far from an expert in the subject). Let's make pretty sure we don't delete useful content out of "revenge" towards an unruly editor. --LjL (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When I started looking at this topic one of the first things I notices is that Programmatic media is not even a term used in the literature, it is simply nonsense. "Programmatic" and "Programmatic media buying" are used but those fit easily under Contextual advertising and Semantic targeting. The whole ecosystem, which is what this article seems to be intended to target, is not really addressed in the literature as a single thing so collecting it under a single term like Programmatic media is WP:OR and smells, to me, like an attempt to use Wikipedia to define a new market/product/service. The Teletext section which brought this to ANI is, a) false and b) is being used on many web sites after being copied from Wikipedia - SEO or an indication that there is nothing even it the 'business' about 'Programmatic media' being a 'thing' with a 'history'. In any even Wikipedia is not the place to create the next buzzword in online advertising. An article describing the automatic buying and selling of ad space, how those markets work and how the placement decisions are made would be both fascinating and useful. It seems that information is spread out throughout the Online Advertising tree but nothing really pulls it together, mostly, I believe, because no good sources really pull it together yet.   J bh  Talk  13:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, I reiterate, "programmatic media" followed by nothing doesn't appear to mean anything; however, "programmatic media buying", "programmatic marketing" and "programmatic advertising" (the three bolded terms in the article itself, which, ironically, does not include "programmatic media") do appear in literature (see above). LjL (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, however "programmatic media buying" is essentially Real-time bidding (Which could use some expansion to explain how Ad exchanges and Attribution (marketing) fit in.) .  This article is trying to tie up the bundle by linking all of that with Big data and Internet of things etc. ie saying that "Programmatic media" is a super-set of "Programmatic media buying". That it is a 'thing' which encompasses all of those articles, that there is a synthetic whole not mentioned in the literature. Several days were spent on the talk page just trying to figure out what the article is supposed to be about. I do not think anyone really figured it out, the consensus was to clean it up and see if something emerged. Maybe the others, who edited the article much more than I did, finally got their heads around what the actual topic was but I could not. See this section of the talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Programmatic_media#Revised_intro]  J bh  Talk  14:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Added talk page link.  J bh  Talk  14:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I never did figure it out, no. I had sort of hoped that by whittling the thing down the actual shape of the underlying concepts would become clearer, but we never got there.  I do agree that "programmatic media buying" and a couple of other terms do appear to have meaning, and redirects from them to the appropriate page would not be a bad idea.  The other 235 or so can go.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that we could use a good article written for the non-ad-industry reader which describes what happens when you go to a web page that has ads. "Programmatic media" isn't that article. The online advertising tree has a blind men and the elephant problem; the subarticles have too much detail for the average reader, and the top article is mostly a summary of where to go for details on the subparts. I'm going to continue this discussion at Talk:Online advertising. John Nagle (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I never did figure out what this article is supposed to be about, either.  Ad Week has an article on "programmatic", which seems to be what this article is trying to describe.  They also have a tag for the term, which brings up quite a few more articles.  But what exactly is this article about?  Not only is it an impenetrable mess, it's full of synth-y original research.  "Programmatic" (or "programmatic advertising") certainly seems to be a popular topic in Ad Week, but I'm unconvinced that what we currently have is a valid starting point for an encyclopedic article.  It might be better to just delete this article, determine the proper common name, and set a clear scope for the article.  At best, I think this should be moved to draft space, where these issues can be resolved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Online advertising. It appears that this article is being maintained largely by a currently-blocked editor with some unidentified conflict of interest.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, a regrettable outcome given the inordinate amount of time a number of editors have spent in trying to make the article into something encyclopaedic. However, it is by now fairly well established that the article, if kept, would still require much additional work (not helped because the original creator seems determined to reinstate meaningless and/or demonstrably untrue content each time they come back from a block). Even if that alone was not ground for deletion, the facts that it is (a) about an apparently made-up term (or, at best, a non-notable one) and is (b) a content fork of an already well-covered subject, seal the deal. It's time to cut our losses and remove the article plus all the redirects to it. The redirects may validly redirect to other existing articles so I recommend they are deleted without prejudice to recreating them appropriately. I do not believe that "Programmatic media" should be recreated even as a redirect - it doesn't appear to exist as a recognised term and there is some suspicion that the article and all of the redirects to are an attempt to establish it as one. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as content fork or Merge to Online advertising (if there's anything worth saving). Thomas.W talk 20:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete + check the other user IP's ( Macrakis, RichardOSmith, NinjaRobotPirate, Robert McClenon, JohnInDC, Jbhunley, LjL, Nagle Ddiament, User:Dthomsen8 50% likely connected to a media agency or media company 78.147.123.137 (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (Note See Sockpuppet investigations/Jugdev J bh  Talk  19:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're saying here. LjL (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am retired, and have no connedtion with any for-profit company.--01:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomsen8 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment - I know what the IP is saying. The IP is saying that we all either have conflicts of interest or are sockpuppets.  This is a common disruptive tactic at AFD's to raise conduct issues that come out of nowhere.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Online advertising and nuke redirects from orbit There's nothing compelling in here that merits a separate article. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge this page with Online advertising, then delete this page as having a meaningless title. Identify the two or three suitable redirects from the collection of 200+ and point them to Online advertising.  Delete the balance of those.  JohnInDC (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken the better parts from programmatic advertising and merged them into online advertising. See my recent edits to both articles. Is there anything else at programmatic advertising worth saving? John Nagle (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Response changed accordingly.  Thanks for the good work.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * John Nagle, - Erm, would this merge effort not require us to retain this article's history for attribution?  We might now be at a point where this page should be redirected (and all the SEO redirects deleted at RFD). Resolute 16:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , since I am terrible at properly pinging users. Resolute 16:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess - I don't know. I changed my response to "delete", because if the relevant material is now included at Online advertising there's no need for this page.  And if this page is substantively covered elsewhere, I don't see much need to preserve the history of this article, or that nightmare of a Talk page.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit which pasted part of programmatic advertising into online advertising is here.. The edit comment is "‎ (→‎Display advertising process overview: - add useful material from Programmatic advertising.)" That meets the requirements of WP:SMERGE.  It's about six lines of text. Wikipedia merger policy is not to ask for a history merge for such edits; see How to fix cut-and-paste moves.  (Today's XKCD is relevant.)   John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, due to salvageable parts having been merged. LjL (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that a !vote to "merge and delete" will mostly simply be treated by the closing admin as "merge", as discussed at Merge and delete. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 22:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not really my problem, my personal belief is that Wikipedia's "deletion" system is fundamentally broken. And for that matter, generally speaking, you can't know before deleting an article if parts of it have previously been used inside another article (with "attribution" in the form of linking to history), so yeah, it's broken all-around. LjL (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect the article to online advertising per WP:MAD due to some merging taking place but delete all 197 redirects first. The redirects are pretty ridiculous and I can guarantee that they'll end up at WP:RFD if they aren't taken care of now. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The article title is, however, a nonsense term and possibly was chosen for the purpose of SEO. There is no such thing as Programmatic media and Wikipedia should not say there is. If the history must be kept it would be best to choose a term that actually exists like Programmatic media buying which I believe is one of the redirects and will likely be kept and pointed to Real-time bidding. J bh  Talk  20:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Related to the above, I've proposed merging real-time bidding into ad exchange, and have been trying to hammer the set of online advertising articles into a more coherent form, with more overview, less duplication and more cross-references. Anyone want to help? See Talk:Online advertising. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, then salt this and delete and salt all the SEO style redirects as an attempt to pervert the use of Wikipedia to bring some glimmer of faux notability to a term which is not in use. Fiddle   Faddle  21:18, 30 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.