Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Ventures


 * 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. It does not appear that there was anything close to a consensus for deletion on the first two rounds of listing this, but on the third relisting the trend to keep is too clear to miss. BD2412 T 04:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Red Ventures

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable media company. This article does not present a case for corporate notability, and a naïve Google search does not indicate that any obvious sources have been overlooked. The company exists, which we knew, and has this Wikipedia article. The article provides a very brief summary of what the company says about itself, and says nothing about what third parties say about the company. The article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, but they do not establish notability. 6 of the references are the company's own web site, and 2 are to the web site of an investing company. There is a history of the creation of promotional articles about the company. A draft has also been created and has been declined. The draft also does not establish corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Noncommittal comment. My intuition is that the corporate parent of CNET (see, , ) is probably notable, but it seems like the vast majority of coverage is in the context of that acquisition. Apparently it's been around since 2000, and was a marketing company as of 2016. If others don't turn up better sourcing, maybe redirect to CNET? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:COMMONSENSE precedes all guidelines. All citation templates include the name of the publisher. If the website is notable (CNET), it just seems sensible that the citation should refer to a publisher that's notable too. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to CNET would appear to be a commonsense and sensible solution. None of the references available meet our NCORP guidelines so a redirect as an alternative to deletion.  HighKing++ 19:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly the article could use some fleshing out, but notability doesn't seem to be a concern given the list of products owned. The sourcing appears to be reliable, if not overly deep, but I don't see deletion as the solution.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The company owns numerous independently notable media properties (CNET, ZDNet, TV Guide, Metacritic, GameSpot, Chowhound etc) and just announced their acquisition of the world's largest travel publisher Lonely Planet.  The company has independent coverage, such as this piece in Inc, and their acquisition spree in itself is notable and has been well covered in reputable sourced, eg. . Jpatokal (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or ATD of Redirect to CNET: Fails NCORP and any form of GNG. At this time, and from what I see, I agree with the Nom about the low-quality sources (promotional) and lack of notability for a stand alone article. Long standing community practices are that notability is not inherited. Two of the "keep arguments above, such as, "given list of products owned", and "The company owns numerous independently notable media properties.", along with comments that Wikipedia become a news outlet with "their acquisition spree in itself is notable...", suggest that we now move in a new direction. If the parent company becomes notable in it's own right would be the time to publish a neutral article. ==  Otr500 (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even close to being notable in its own right, not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP/GNG.  HighKing++ 12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This company has "a portfolio of over 100 news and information sites ... reaches over 300 million readers worldwide every month." I think it is goo enough to keep it on wikipedia, especially given the recent acquisitions of CNET and LP. Kolma8 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The company meets all the citeria for notability. Cite references include primary media coverge of the company by: The Wall Street Journal, Inc., The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Variety, Irish Times, Financial Times - showing notability. Davodd (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. The references you cite fail WP:NCORP which are the guidelines to use for all organizations.  HighKing++ 19:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Do NOT redirect. Company is notable. This is a company with HQ based in U S. with offices in the U.S., Brazil, UK, China, Australia, etc. It has a portfolio of companies in digital marketing. Article has sufficient citations. SWP13 (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2020 (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.