Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RadiumOne (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep.

The main argument, made by the nominator multiple times in the discussion, was that WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a policy trumps WP:GNG, a "mere" guideline. Multiple people pointed out (correctly) that WP:NOTDIRECTORY only mandates deletion if the problem cannot be fixed by editing (which WP:WHATISTOBEDONE mentions as an alternative of what to do when a page really violates WP:NOT). Also, not explicitly mentioned, but thusly implied, WP:ATD is also a policy and it says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." (mirroring the aforementioned advice on WP:NOT).

Regarding possible COI editors hindering cleanup, there is no rule that says a page has to be deleted if such editors work on it, even if they make it hard to fix problems in the article. After all, the WP:COI and WP:PAY guidelines were created to deal with such users and the WP:BLOCK policy allows blocking single-purpose accounts.

The nominators claim "WP:NOT is in fact policy alone as it's the highest policies we have" does not take into account that despite the existence of Five pillars, there is no actual rule that says any of those pillars is more important than say the editing or deletion policies, both of which have been cited here in favor of retaining the article (albeit cleaned up).

Other editors arguing against notability have no longer done so after provided a list of sources, so consensus on notability was established pretty clearly.

Considering all this and weighing the various arguments made, consensus for keeping the article existed at this time. Regards  So  Why  21:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

RadiumOne
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertising sourced by only either published or republished PR announcements, trade publications, interviews, listings and all similar and a careful search here shows nothing but exact PR, and that alone is a concern for us here at AfD because there's nothing for genuine independent notability and substance and certainly not when advertising is involved, hence violating our policies. As always, WP:NOT is non-negotiable and simply because the last AfD was withdrawn has no bearing here, because the advertising has continued, and I know we've certainly changed since 2014 about advertising and we've certainly changed against such consensus as "It's sourced!". SwisterTwister  talk  02:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a self-serving article without as far as I can tell any objective interest to third parties. The company isn't notable. I'm weary of companies using Wiki as a platform for self-promotion. This article is a good example of this unfortunate trend on Wikipedia. Chisme (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered by popular media, more than just press. Last time nominated and kept with all keep votes. It is well known brand by well known Personality known globally. It adheres to lots of Wikipedia standards for any company. Light2021 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, the sources are still noticeably outweighed by PR and other self-company sources, and there's not enough to substantially improve it in satisfying our policies, especially about such company articles. SwisterTwister   talk  20:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. A promotional article with a truly remarkable array of press releases attempting to serve as sources. They may get some coverage elsewhere based on the press releases, but none of this is reliable enough to justify adding WP to the list of media in which they advertise. There are normally two reasons for a array of PR or trivial sources: either that there isn't anything else, or that the editor can't tell the difference.  DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- un unremarkable private company going about its business. Content is advertorial in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The book notes: "RadiumOne was able to make an immediate impact because it gave advertisers far more up-to-date information to make value judgements. RadiumOne's platform runs and generates data in real time. Its agility comes from being able to continually adjust content to match the changing social web demands of web users — a first for online advertising. With RadiumOne's own tools to map user behavior — they labelled it their Dynamic Audience Platform — they can apply lessons learnt from statistics based on live interaction. This lets RadiumOne's analysts segment and then match advertising to the most appropriate users, with a stream of real-time information to constantly inform their positioning. The technology can also identify new audiences from first-time site visitors. Being able to scale new and existing audiences in this way gives RadiumOne an advantage because, in having granular detail on web users, they can accurately predict footfall and reponse rates for advertising. RadhiumOne are, therefore, making online advertising less of an art, more of a science, with clearer returns on investment."  The article notes: "ComScore lists San Francisco-based RadiumOne as the ninth largest online ad network, with 169.7 million unique visitors in January. Criteo SA, another Web-advertising agency, had $616.3 million sales in 2013 and ranked fifth, while Rocket Fuel Inc. had revenue of $240.6 million and was 16th on Comscore’s list. RadiumOne has narrowed its search of lead investment banks to two, and anticipates that the IPO will take place in the third quarter of 2014, the people said."  The article notes: "RadiumOne has its main offices in a tall building in the heart of downtown San Francisco -- just two blocks from CNET's headquarters. The company was founded in September 2009 by Chahal, who had already struck gold once when he sold a previous ad network, BlueLithium, to Yahoo for $300 million in 2007, and who won Ernst & Young's 2013 entrepreneur of the year award in the platform technology category. On its website, RadiumOne says it 'builds intelligent software that automates media buying, making big data actionable for marketers and connects them to their next customer.' That's the kind of description guaranteed to induce yawns for those not deeply involved in ad networks. But for an enterprise company, making money is the way to the hearts of investors, and it's clear RadiumOne was attractive enough to venture capitalists to raise a $10.5 million A-round of funding in late 2009, and a $21 million B-round in March 2011 led by Crosslink Capital. That round valued the company at $200 million. Some think an IPO is in its near future. ... On April 27, RadiumOne issued a press release announcing Chahal's firing, and his replacement by COO Bill Lonergan. 'Bill has an extraordinary professional background and has helped build BlueLithium and RadiumOne into industry leading brands,' the company said in its statement. 'We are confident he will continue RadiumOne's impressive trajectory.' The release made no mention of Chahal's legal problems. Nor, of course, did it mention the company had somehow allowed a man wanted by the Secret Service to be hired, and promoted to a position as director of engineering."  The article notes: "The company, gWallet Inc., is being rebranded as RadiumOne Inc. and will use “social retargeting” technology to analyze how users interact with one another to find consumers most closely identified with a brand’s customer base. Chahal said RadiumOne will outperform any previous ad network or refund the full cost of campaigns that run on the new network. ... RadiumOne aims to analyze social interactions to place the consumers on a social graph that will accurately describe their behavior. The company will take the social data and segment the various interactions to form “social clusters” of people who know each other and share common interests. The company will then leverage these new groups to serve ads. ... He founded gWallet last year to provide offers marketing to social-gaming companies by sealing deals directly with large brands, rather than working through ad networks. GWallet will continue to live under the RadiumOne umbrella, contributing data to the new network. ... The San Francisco-based company in December raised $10 million in Series A financing led by Adams Street Partners and Trinity Ventures, and has raised $12.5 million in total. ..." <li> The article notes: "Documents reviewed by the Journal, dated before the judge’s ruling, show the lengths to which RadiumOne board members and lawyers strategized on how to minimize the impact of the case on the planned IPO filing, which never materialized. Venture capitalist and one-time California state controller Steve Westly, who joined RadiumOne’s board in November 2013, suggested in a Dec. 3, 2013, email to Mr. Chahal that lawyer Willie Brown, former San Francisco mayor and State Assembly speaker, “believes that he can help you.” Mr. Westly, who is considering a second run for governor, wrote that Mr. Brown knows the district attorney and “may be able to ‘back him off,’” adding that Mr. Brown is a “very good deal broker.”"</li> <li> The article notes: "Now the serial entrepreneur is deep into his third online advertising startup, San Francisco's RadiumOne. This time, he's looking at social and mobile advertising, and how best to display online advertisements based on a person's use of Twitter and other online social activity. RadiumOne began as gWallet, its a loyalty and rewards program, which allows Internet users to receive virtual currency for doing things such as answering advertising-sponsored surveys. It has since expanded to RadiumOne."</li> <li> The article notes: "RadiumOne, once a high flyer in the advertising technology world, has less than three months of cash left and is being turned down by dozens of investors. That’s what two anonymous inside sources are telling VentureBeat tonight. Both said that the company hired RBC three months ago to lead its new investment round, but the investment bank has come up bare."</li> <li> The article notes: "RadiumOne, an online ad network that aims to combine social and intent data to serve ads, is getting into the group messaging space today. The company is releasing a free, group messaging app for iOS and Android called PingMe Messenger that allows users to message each other in real-time, across platforms. ... For background, RadiumOne mines social data and use this information to identify relevant consumers for brands. Through what Chahal calls “social retargeting,” RadiumOne analyzes how users interact with one another on social networks to find the consumers that identify with a brand’s current customer base, and then serves advertisements to this audience across the company’s network of publishers. The company just raised $21 million in new funding at a $200 million valuation."</li> <li> The article notes: "RadiumOne provides businesses with marketing and analytics tools that generate data that the startup uses to target ads for its clients. It earns a cut of the advertising spend for accurately targeting the ads to potential and existing customers on the web, mobile, video, and Facebook. It’s said to be profitable, unlike some other players in the space that are still burning venture capital. The company has raised $33.5 million from Crosslink Capital, Adams Street Partners, and Trinity Ventures. CEO Gurbaksh Chahal, who recently pleaded not guilty to allegations of assault, provided the company’s initial funding with proceeds from previously selling the startups BlueLithium and ValueClick for $300 million and $40 million respectively."</li> <li> The article notes: "Adtech company RadiumOne has raised a $54 million 50/50 equity/debt financing round, which it plans to use to open more offices across Asia-Pacific and Europe, expand its data and platform technology, and fund more sales and marketing hires. The round appears to be a sign that the company is in stable financial health. RadiumOne tells Business Insider the company reported $125 million in revenue in 2014, that it is on track to achieve around $200 million in revenue this year, and that it is net profitable. The financing should also squash anonymous rumors that circulated the adtech industry in March that RadiumOne was struggling to raise capital and that it had just three months of cash left. At the time, RadiumOne chief executive William 'Bill' Lonergan sent out a memo to staff flatly denying the allegations, adding that no jobs were at risk. It has been around four years since RadiumOne, previously valued at $500 million, last raised investment. The last investment was $21 million in Series B financing, according to CrunchBase."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow RadiumOne to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * rewrote the article in 2014; her neutral rewritten version is here and is a clean version to revert to if necessary. That the current version of the article contains promotional content does not mean the article should be deleted. Editing policy and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging Articles for deletion/RadiumOne participants and closer:, , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment and analysis - All of the sources are clear published and republished company website information in business publications, one of which BusinessInsider we no longer consider independent because of its similar choices to Forbes which host self-published or self-hired company information, next VentureBeat has been established by AfD in the last year that it's unsuitable because of its willingness to republish press releases and label them as articles. The analysis of these sources show clear consistency and the obvious signs no one but the company put it there:
 * RadiumOne was able to make an immediate impact because it gave advertisers far more up-to-date information to make value judgements. RadiumOne's platform runs and generates data in real time. Its agility comes from being able to continually adjust content to match the changing social web demands of web users — a first for online advertising. With RadiumOne's own tools to map user behavior — they labelled it their Dynamic Audience Platform — they can apply lessons learnt from statistics based on live interaction. This lets RadiumOne's analysts segment and then match advertising to the most appropriate users, with a stream of real-time information to constantly inform their positioning. The technology can also identify new audiences from first-time site visitors. Being able to scale new and existing audiences in this way gives RadiumOne an advantage because, in having granular detail on web users, they can accurately predict footfall and reponse rates for advertising. RadhiumOne are, therefore, making online advertising less of an art, more of a science, with clearer returns on investment. (Clear advertisement with even guide information to customers such as "Scale new and existing audiences, RadiumOne are making online advertising, more of a science, with clearer returns on investments) Thus clear violations of WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing and WP:What Wikipedia is not #Advertising
 * The round appears to be a sign that the company is in stable financial health. RadiumOne tells Business Insider the company reported $125 million in revenue in 2014, that it is on track to achieve around $200 million in revenue this year, and that it is net profitable. (Clear company quote)
 * It has been around four years since RadiumOne, previously valued at $500 million, last raised investment. The last investment was $21 million in Series B financing, according to CrunchBase. (CrunchBase is one of their own company business profiles, hence not independent and therefore violating even WP:CORPDEPTH which states such contents are unacceptable)
 * ComScore lists San Francisco-based RadiumOne as the ninth largest online ad network, with 169.7 million unique visitors in January. Criteo SA, another Web-advertising agency, had $616.3 million sales in 2013 and ranked fifth, while Rocket Fuel Inc. had revenue of $240.6 million and was 16th on Comscore’s list. RadiumOne has narrowed its search of lead investment banks to two, and anticipates that the IPO will take place in the third quarter of 2014, the people said. (Another clear company quote, down to the blatant specifics of their finances, which violates both WP:What Wikipedia is not#Advertising and WP:CORPDEPTH)
 * RadiumOne provides businesses with marketing and analytics tools that generate data that the startup uses to target ads for its clients. It earns a cut of the advertising spend for accurately targeting the ads to potential and existing customers on the web, mobile, video, and Facebook. It’s said to be profitable, unlike some other players in the space that are still burning venture capital. (Clear advertising since it makes unsupported claims as "said to be profitable, unlike some other players" which is both vague and also PR-form since it only ascertains their own company puffery)
 * All of this is nothing but republished company information in tech publications that are willing to publish them, such as TechCrunch which we've long established here at AfD now as being nothing but a tech blog, which openly and willingly publishes press releases, down to the specific "Company information courtesy of radiumone.com", "The company's report is published here", etc thus still violating even the simplest WP:CORPDEPTH, and worse, policy WP:NOT. None of the sources escape the blatant consistency of clear PR, which each time fluffs the company's own unsupported claims of "The company can be this or that" or "The company is better than other similar companies". Next, each article above is from each company financial quarter, not a consistent flow of coverage (2010), (2012), (March 2014), (March 2015), (June 2015), (September 2015) and then that's it (that only shows this is a "young and starting company" which the article confirm, since we currently have the republished company website information, so that emphasizes the fact it was simply to motivate their own advertising. SwisterTwister   talk  15:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For analysis, I've reduced the above post to cites to policies or guidelines and other references:
 * clear violations of WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing and WP:What Wikipedia is not #Advertising
 * violating...WP:CORPDEPTH
 * violates both WP:What Wikipedia is not#Advertising and WP:CORPDEPTH
 * violating...WP:CORPDEPTH, and...policy WP:NOT.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One point is that the claims about what has been decided at AfD are not traceable, i.e., these are proofs by assertion. Unscintillating (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing deserves attention, as this redirect was created in a recent AfD when I noted that it was a red link. I posted the following, which has yet to receive a response: "Although you've now created a Wikilink for this conversation,, that points to Wikipedia is not a directory, you haven't explained the relationship of the Wikilink to the conversation. As stated at WP:VAGUEWAVE, 'While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand.'  In this case, you've also yet to explain which part is relevant, and it is a long section.  I found two sentences that use both the words 'business' and 'list'.  * 'Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings.' * '7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances...'  That section goes on to say, 'Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose.'"Do you agree that there is (1) no list of patent filings in the article, and (2) no listing of business alliances without supporting sourced prose? Unscintillating (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable sources give significant coverage so it meets the requirements for WP:NOTABILITY. I'm sure a company that is valued at a half a billion dollars, is going to get ample attention in business news.  If there is a problem with the article, it can be fixed, no reason to delete it.  I'm going through it now to remove some stuff that shouldn't be there.   D r e a m Focus  10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability is not a pillar policy nor has it ever been considered one, it's a suggestive guideline for subjects that may be notable, not instantly. SwisterTwister   talk  07:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow! So you can just ignore any Wikipedia rules you don't like?  Great.  I guess for over ten years now, all of us participating in deletion discussions have been getting it wrong?   D r e a m Focus  13:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:NOTADVERTISING says, "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The WP:NOT arguments are not based in policy.  As a surmountable problem, advertising in an article must first be identified.  As found by unanimous keep's and withdrawal of the nomination at the previous AfD and confirmed here, multiple reliable sources with international attention have covered the topic, satisfying notability requirements.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is actually policy, so it can be used in any case at all, the problem in advertising have been listed above repeatedly including the fact the company itself involved their own plans into making this article, that alone violates our "No Company Advertising" policies. WP:ITSNOTABLE also covers the "It was kept last time". SwisterTwister   talk  00:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So for the second time in this one AfD, I will quote WP:NOTADVERTISING. WP:NOTADVERTISING says, "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts."  You haven't identified any advertising problems.  Your search for [RadiumOne advertising] comes up with sources because advertising is a product of this company, which is not the same thing as them advertising themselves.  Further, Wikipedia has no objections if notable companies advertise.  I am not aware of any policy that says that notable companies cannot advertise.  There is also the definition of advertising in merriam-webster that starts, "the action of calling something to the attention of the public".  If the public chooses to look up an article in our encyclopedia, then we are here to enable them to do that.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your claim that the entire previous AfD amounts to an WP:ATA argument of WP:ITSNOTABLE is dismissive of the work and time of the five editors who studied this topic, reported their results, and modified the article; including the nominator who withdrew the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim that "the company itself involved their own plans into making this article", appears to be paranoic ideation. Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

SwisterTwister  talk  07:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:NOT is in fact policy alone as it's the highest policies we have and it overtakes any suggestive guidelines we have, and further is the fact I analyzed all sources above, showing how they're all published and republished business announcements, hence WP:NOT applies even if it was a major publisher. Also, AfDs are never judged and based by the fact of the last AfDs and even the AfD policy states this. Importantly, see how the history itself shows removal of advertising] only to be restored by SPAs again, thus WP:NOT applying because it shows we're blatantly being misused as a business webhost. Next, is the fact that removal of advertising has occurred in this AfD timeline itself, including g the removal of published PR, hence WP:NOT applies since it shows this is not intended as an encyclopedia articpe nor something we accept as notability, hence delete. As it is, WP:NOT was the first policy we made so it would be clear what the encyclopedia here accepted and unaccepted, and advertising was among the first listed and therefore we've been using it since then, and it existed even in 2009; further, the first AfD ended with  Withdrawn, not a full basis of Keep, thus nothing barring a 2nd AfD at all. Next, "multiple reliable sources with international attention have covered the topic, satisfying notability requirements" has never been in pillar policy, and in fact, our policies show that would never even been an instant factor, and even WP:CORPDEPTH (a suggestive guideline) itself says sources must not be business announcements and PR, of which this current article's sources all are, thus unconvincing. Current sources:
 * 1 is a clear local business announcement and interview
 * 2 is a legal suit for the CEO, trivial news story
 * 3 is same
 * 4 is same
 * 5 is same
 * 6 is a business announcement
 * 7 is same
 * 8 is same
 * 9 is same
 * 10 is same
 * 11 is legal suit again
 * 12 is business announcement
 * 13 is same
 * 14 is same, but republished overseas
 * 15 is business announcement
 * 16 is business announcement
 * 17 is same, and it's boldly stated as such
 * 18 is business announcement
 * 19 is same
 * 20 is yet another boldly stated business announcement
 * So none of this escaped the company's own largest stake in self-PR and that's exactly why our policies bar such advertising.
 * Regarding some specific claims made without an explanation:


 * ST: "multiple reliable sources with international attention have covered the topic, satisfying notability requirements"...our policies show that would never even been an instant factor,
 * What is an "instant factor" and where does this appear in policy?
 * ST: WP:CORPDEPTH...says sources must not be business announcements and PR,
 * What CORPDEPTH actually says about business announcements is, "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,". "PR" is not mentioned.  Right?
 * ST: this current article's sources all are [business announcements and PR].
 * It is not reasonable that each of 30 of the article's sources are either "business announcements" or "PR". Right?
 * Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If I were to weight all the comments equally, this probably adds up to delete at this point, but Cunard presented a bunch of sources which have not gotten a full review, so relisting this to allow further discussion of those sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The sourcing provided by User:Cunard, particularly this article in the WSJ, establish that the company has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Revert to less promotional revision in the history if necessary. Υπογράφω (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which past version contains both a non-PR and notability-substantiating content? Because history clearly shows it's only been advertising. Also, please show how, where and why this could be supported by such a change? Since that's what our policies need after all. SwisterTwister   talk  01:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the revision suggested by above. It was a clean rewrite following the previous AfD. But regardless, whether or not there is a clean revision in the history is actually immaterial to the deletion discussion, which should focus on whether or not a satisfactory article can be written given the available reliable sources -- and it can. Υπογράφω (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that version is nothing but a simple business listing with clear announcements and mentions for sources; WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing would still apply and then "whether an article can be with available reliable sources" isn't applying.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. Perfection is not required, from any revision. Restarting from a stub is not an insurmountable problem. We don't delete an article just because it doesn't cite available reliable sources -- we add them to the article and continue improving it. Υπογράφω (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The first question that should always be asked at an AfD is "Does this topic pass GNG". Forget about how the topic is written and whether it is promotional or not. *If* it passes GNG, then it should not be listed here but should be cleaned up. Far too many articles are listed at AfD for reasons involving "Promotional content" but where the topic otherwise passes GNG. In this particular case, there are a number of references that show that the topic meets GNG and CORPDEPTH and the sources meet WP:RS.
 * This slate article is an independent third-party reliable source. As is this and this and a load of others, all reporting on the same event (although they don't count separately as per WP:ONEEVENT ....)
 * I can't see the content of the book by Rob Garner but it may be more than a passing mention - does anyone have a copy?
 * This book "Pioneers of Digital" does a case study on RadiumOne
 * And this book "Television and the Second Screen" also writes about RadiumOne and market research
 * There are more than enough third party references to meet GNG. If the article is crap, then rewrite it. -- HighKing ++ 15:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While it's a good quantity, it's still not overcoming our policy WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing because simply attention for its controversy us the only good thing for an article weighing here, hence WP:1E. Also, "There are more than enough third party references to meet GNG. If the article is crap, then rewrite it" is overcome by the fact GANG has never been a policy, so it can never be taken as a guarantee factor. Also, this article has been rewritten by several users but nothing genuinely convincing has happened so WP:NOT once again applies, a policy, and policy is all we ever need. SwisterTwister   talk  00:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you're basically saying that you're happy to delete an article on a notable topic that meets WP:GNG and with sources that meet WP:RS??? Sorry, but you need to reread policy. Your response above shows you are constantly misinterpreting core policy and this is not the first time I've seen you at AfD !voting to delete a topic that meets notability but where the article needs a rewrite for whatever reason. It is starting to become a problem. -- HighKing ++ 11:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You created the redirect you keep mentioning, and its going to be deleted soon. [] There is nowhere in WP:NOTDIRECTORY that applies here.  D r e a m Focus  00:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "You want to delete an article when it meets WP:GNG and WP:RS?" Yes, because it still violates WP:NOT as my full analysis earlier showed. For example, people continue stating this is notable yet the history clearly shows no one else has attempted to improve it, despite starting so. Our policies themselves state we have to actually improve said articles for them to be acceptable in our policies. If this company was in fact notable, anyone would've improved it as the fact, and without it, WP:NOT still applies. Similar, Draftspace exists for areas to improve, but mainspace is not the place. WP:Wikipedia is not a webhost.  SwisterTwister   talk  02:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. You have a problem with the article, fix it or shut up about it.  Don't expect others to do it for you.  Also see the policy NOTPERFECT.   D r e a m Focus  02:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * +1 -- HighKing ++ 12:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer Please note, we don't delete an article where the topic meets GNG, we clean it up instead. Reviewing some of the Delete !votes above indicates some editors have misinterpreted core policy and are proposing that WP:NOT trumps WP:GNG which is incorrect. -- HighKing ++ 12:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I had no difficulty finding articles in reliable sources talking about the company.  This establishes notability.  These include: Bloomberg, UK Business Insider, Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, Fox Business, The Guardian, The Entrepreneur, CNN, Vanity Fair, The Huffington Post.--  Toddy1 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, as opposed to those only in the article. The article would benefit from some of the sources within it being replaced with ones that are more reliable, which are widely available in internet searches. This and concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America1000 00:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment and analysis - I've been planning to comment sooner given the sheer deepness here, but I'll begin with "we don't delete an article where the topic meets GNG, we clean it up instead" has never been covered in policy, and especially not WP:What Wikipedia is not. Next, the analysis of the above sources:
 * Bloomberg is in fact their own stocks listing and own published company bio, so it's not satisfying any of our standards since it's not independent
 * UKBusinessInsider is a trade publication, focusing with trivial business activities regardless of the subject, because that's what the contents still are, and how we judge them
 * CNN is yet another case
 * Fortune is perhaps the worst case so far, because it actually begins with the company businessman quotes, continues with large paragraph of "Here is what another article said" until finishing with such blatancy of "Here are the company investors"; the fact it ended with that, after going into such specifics is alarming enough. WP:CORPDEPTH itself states such sourcing is unacceptable because it's clear business advertising, and WP:What Wikipedia is not is clear about it, thus there's no policy-backed basis of accepting it.
 * WallStreetJournal is another case as it's simply a news story about the business aspect
 * The HuffPost is all from business-specific columns, which guarantee any attention for the company to its own gains, not an encyclopedia's
 * TheGuardian is an equally violating one because it begins with: this is a company interview with the businessman but it gets worse with such quotes as RadiumOne is bringing a new approach to online advertising by using social data to get the right ads to the right audience – in essence we focus on social interactions, allowing our targeting to be more relevant and on a greater scale...."What does an average day look like for you?", "What are your challenges", "What made you work in the media?", "What is the key to your job", "What is your management style?", "What online resources?", "What advertising is exciting you?", "What are your business tips?", "What are your other thoughts?" (All this alone violates WP:CORPDEPTH, and I actually only spent a few minutes until that same article finished)
 * While FOXNews is about a controversy, it's still only in the business columns section
 * The Entrepreneur is simply about the legal case, which then applies WP:1E as it's clear this is the only largest impact the company had, apart from its own PR
 * Exactly the same with VanityFair
 * This all finishes the sources offered, and it only took me a few minutes to analyze and see what concerns existed, so merely asserting that we should accept them as substance is not the same thing as actually showing us how, why, and where we should use them in our policies, especially when there's never been a policy that states "Articles are guaranteed notable as long as reliable sourcing exists". As long we save Wikipedia's integrity as a non-advertising encyclopedia, it won't exist. As it is, the Keep votes never based themselves with a genuine policy. I'll also then note this article has only been changed and improved once and it was before all my analysis here happened, any changes now have only been cosmetic such as changing the company's own mirrored portfolio. For example, this current article's largest section is in fact the "Products" section which has four paragraphs (note the lead has 1 large one and then the "History" section has two), all sourced by anything from published or republished PR, tech trade publications which hosted their own announcements or anything else between, and what's else is there's the same consistency of the company publishing its own PR at the same time their financial quarters happen, so there's no one else behind that but the company itself hence still not satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. Next, even our simplest standards will state "Articles may be notable", it's not a guarantee because we judge and base each article by its own merits, including how it can and will affect an encyclopedia. If we choose to keep such largely one-sided basis of a "Products" section that only advertises them, we're damaging ourselves. SwisterTwister   talk  00:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Response:
 * ST: *Bloomberg is in fact their own stocks listing and own published company bio, so it's not satisfying any of our standards since it's not independent
 * Bloomberg has been approved at RSN.
 * ST: *UKBusinessInsider is a trade publication, focusing with trivial business activities regardless of the subject, because that's what the contents still are, and how we judge them
 * Who is "we"?
 * ST: CNN is yet another case
 * CNN focuses on trivial business activities? CNN is short for Cable News Network and is a prominent news media worldwide.
 * ST: ...WP:CORPDEPTH itself states such sourcing is unacceptable because it's clear business advertising...
 * CORPDEPTH has nothing to say about sourcing for an article as it is a notability guideline, and notability guidelines are not content policies.
 * ST: *WallStreetJournal is another case as it's simply a news story about the business aspect
 * A news story about a business aspect seems to be fine.
 * ST: All this alone violates WP:CORPDEPTH...
 * I'm not aware that there is any such thing as a violation of CORPDEPTH.
 * ST:*While FOXNews is about a controversy, it's still only in the business columns section
 * A source in the business column section about a controversy seems to be fine.
 * ST: *This all finishes the sources offered, and it only took me a few minutes to analyze and see what concerns existed, so merely asserting that we should accept them as substance is not the same thing as actually showing us how, why, and where we should use them in our policies, especially when there's never been a policy that states "Articles are guaranteed notable as long as reliable sourcing exists".
 * This is a run-on sentence. The word "substance" is not a policy-based word, and I'm not aware that anyone advocates accepting sources as substance.
 * Article topics are not guaranteed notable if they pass WP:N, rather they are presumed to merit an article. WP:N states, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
 * 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
 * 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment and analysis - See WP:CORPDEPTH which says: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability, Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: Routine notices, brief announcements, notices, quotes....". If something as simple as WP:CORPDEPTH still can't be satisfied, there's no convincing signs. Substance is stated in not only that but every other applicable page for notability in companies. Also, WP:N actually states as is: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if" note both the emphasized "presumed" and "if", making it not a guarantee at all, and that's why WP:N states it's not a pillar policy at all. "A source in the business column section about a controversy seems" is unacceptable because it fits WP:CORPDEPTH's statement of "routine notices" and "brief announcements". We as the community judge any articles, and that's we take them to AfD. As for Bloomberg, regardless if it was approved, it's still explicitly a business profile that includes their own authored bio, that itself violates WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:N and WP:What Wikipedia is not, therefore outweighing anything a mere noticeboard announced. "and is a prominent news media worldwide" is not what their own articles have shown and noted and their articles, especially the particularly blatant ones, will note "Source is the company website" or "Information taken from the website courtesy of company", instantly violating WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:N and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Especially when CNN has knowingly used freelance journalists as it is, instantly violating our policies in having news be by trustworthy journalists, not someone who can be hired by the company. Regardless, this isn't taking away or outweighing what I explicitly quoted above. No one else cared to actually analyze the sources themselves and see the clear policy violations, so the vote has no weight. For example, the clear fact the company was involved and continued to involve itself, violates WP:NOT and also our policy WP:PAID. For example, I found multiple violations in the fist list of sources offered despite the stated "Satisfies WP:RS" when it in fact had not, because the sources were from both trade PR publications and with explicit labeling of them in the said links. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP has never been policy and by our standards for policymaking, it wouldn't easily be taken as policy, because it's simply a suggestive guideline, and even though, statements of improvements have been listed, no one else ever cared to confirm these possibilities of improvements. Also, WP:NOTPERECT, while in the editing policy, is not in fact ever mentioning company or company subjects, thus it cannot immediately be taken to be a guarantee of accepting this at all. In this case, also, WP:NOTPERFECT itself still states that articles must satisfy our policies, in which this one is not. The quote of "Fix it, don't expect others to" is not applicable and has no weigh because of the fact anyone could've fixed this to satisfy the policies, and yet they haven't and there's been weeks now, suggesting there's no possibility of improvements, especially not when the sources have now been analyzed without serious objections. To answer the comment of "But a lot of other sourcing exists" is not applicable because, as shown earlier, a careful search here easily and quickly showed nothing but published and republished PR exists, thus especially not acceptable in WP:RS at all. Even there, such sources as MuMbrella which repeatedly appears in the link, is listed as a "trade publication" making it instantly unacceptable, and continuing there shows such similar ones as "Statement: This is a republished company press release" (also violating WP:RS), and "This is a business tech blog servicing the tech business" (not satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH either as it's a business PR publication). Continuing into this search showed every variety of local news station stories, tech blogs focused to PR services, freelance contributed articles (violates WP:RS as it basically means anyone could've hired or paid for it). I continued into nearly 10 pages into it (surely any good ones would've appeared instantly), until I actually started getting some of the same links. If this is what people label as "other sourcing", it certainly isn't satisfying our policies, and policies is how we this encyclopedia judge articles.  In fact, I performed two searches in the time I nominated this article, and both times found nohing but PR, so there's no substance for me to improve this at all thus deletion. Because of the still existing fact this article is outweighed by the giant 4-paragraph "products" section, it violates WP:NOT which states: Wikipedia is not a business webhost, Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services Even if we were to remove a few sentences, that would still make it a violation. As for the earlier suggestion of "ignoring rules...we can keep this article", WP:NOT is a policy that has always allowed deletion of anything unsuitable so there's no ignoring it at all. In fact, our standards have actually changed since 2014, when the article was this, and even then, the article never actually improved better from that state, because it only had a few paragraphs and sentences; simply because it wasn't nominated then quickly is not a defense at all, and we're actually obligated to a higher level now because of the recent paid advertising campaigns.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For example, to show how the company was clearly involved here, see Factsandtruthonly, Eavasaurus, Paige Montgomery, Pseudosound (this one actually cared to state their COI], Thanksvijay (one contribution is suggestive enough) and finally Ekcpr so this all alone suggests there was clear campaigning and repeatedly (and this isn't even actually listing the IPs, since there was an enormous amount as it is), so they either never acknowledge our policies about it or simply ignored them, and this is all since 2012, surely enough time to familiarize with what our policies are. In fact, to emphasize the fact their own company campaigning, see this, this and this; note one of the Keep votes actually added a "Needs rewriting" template before being removed by another, so it shows there's no balanced consensus of what or what is not needed here, not to mention, any final actions of said "possible improvements", hence unconvincing in policies. SwisterTwister   talk  05:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ST states (copied from edit window to preserve emphasis)"Also, WP:N actually states as is: 'A topic is presumed to merit an article if' note both the emphasized 'presumed' and 'if', making it not a guarantee at all, and that's why WP:N states it's not a pillar policy at all."


 * WP:N does not have an italicized "presumed", so there is no italicized "presumed" to note. As for an italicized "if", I counted 23 "if"s, but saw none that were italicized.  I also searched for "pillar", and only found one link in a template at the bottom.


 * Here is the lede from :

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
 * 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
 * 2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.
 * }
 * Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To quote from that, it says A topic is presumed to merit an article if It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy - This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page....see WP:What Wikipedia is not before finishing. The policy itself never states that merely being sourced is a guarantee factor at all. In this case, because the subject is only leaning against one happenstance controversy, there's not a lot of different better weigh for a company article, one of which we know for a fact the company started. SwisterTwister   talk  01:23, 30 January 2017 (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.