Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shareasale (second 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 no consensus.  Daniel  08:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shareasale

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was originally deleted through AfD. DRV overturned, claiming that too few commenters had the opportunity to see the new evidence brought forth at the AfD. Please consult both the original AfD and the DRV before commenting. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An affiliate marketing web-based business, especially one involving sales, IMO ought to be treated with the greatest possible skepticism.  These people are in the business of serving up banner links and web ads.  As noted in the prior AfD, there does seem to be a whiff of conflict of interest here.  The article tries to build a case for WP:CORP notability out of a claim that the company has received some kind of distinction because its affiliates are apparently obliged by their contract not to use adware.  This is not enough to achieve notability IMO.  The links reference sites like "affiliatefairplay.com", "revenuetoday.com", "affiliatesummit.com", and "wayneporter.com", perhaps a personal site.  None of these links seem to be substantially independent of the web marketing industry, or reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am one of the "these people" and consider your statement inappropriate. Affiliate marketing is much more than serving up banners and web ads. This is so pre dot-com crash. If you have a personal hatred against affiliate marketers in general then I wonder who the COI really applies to. I would rather discuss the issue in an objective manner and come to a consensus that will satisfy everybody. Your comment shows though that there is far too less information about the affiliate industry available at wikipedia and because of that are general misconceptions and bias the norm when it comes to the subject. I will address your objective comments in the explanation of my vote. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 06:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete ad brochure copy. Mangoe 18:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * pretty bad for an ad brochure IMO. It is missing the sales pitch. Seriously, which part sounds like advertising to you? Thanks. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 07:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to point to guidelines, but statements were made that refers to those guidelines as if they would strongly support the deletion due to not meeting notability and because the reliability of the cited sources was questioned. I will cite important passages of the guidelines for WP:CORP and WP:RS to show what they actually say to the subject.
 * Strong Keep ... In addition to the detailed arguments and verifiable evidence to support the notability of the company made at the first nomination would I like to add another source, which is outside the affiliate marketing industry. The "Internet Retailer", an eCommerce ( eTailer IR) print publication, online resource and organizer of the eTail Internet Retailer (IR) trade show and expo published recently statistics from the affiliate marketing industry benchmark report AffStat. I used the AffStat report as reference in my original argumentation, but the problem was, that the content of the report is not accessible for the public which made the reference less verifiable (you would have to purchase it to get it). The Internet Retailer publication however, is accessible by the public here. One of the stats shows the major networks in affiliate marketing within the United States and each of the networks share, measured in number of merchants that use networks to operate their affiliate program.
 * Comment. Internet Retailer also published this statistic in their print issue from April 2007 on Page 80. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote from WP:CORP "notability (corporations and organizations)":

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". ... Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

WP:RS "reliable sources":

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.

Major general press is not covering the subject very well, with exception of the negative examples of people that use unethical methods to make a quick buck. I am referring to the coverage of AdWare and Spam (email and search engines). If the subject makes it to the main press, is it virtually never mentioned individually, but under the general umbrella of internet marketing. It is widely overshadowed by the larger types of internet marketing which include paid search, email marketing and display advertising (the banners and pop-ups/pop-unders on large websites). The sources which I provided are not the best, because I am unable to find any publication relevant to this discussion in any of the nationwide newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post or similar. However, the sources of the available publications are reliable sources. Those sources are real companies with editorial staff, address, phone number and email address. They do also not fall under the category of unreliable sources like tabloid press. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 06:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Other Affiliate Marketing and Ad Serving companies are inlcuded, so I see no validity in arguing this - other than a personal distaste for people who make money or serve ads. This is not just a legitimate business, but a seven year old business of note amongst everyone in the affiliate marketing community. Someone above mentions the AffStat survey (listed at MarketingSherpa and written about at ClickZ) where ShareASale is highlighted and has been there since the survey's inception. Is it notable? Ask ten people attending AffiliateSummit and see if you can find more than one or two who have not heard of them.

Look at their Google results. They get an extended listing with subsection links. Not many sites get that. Search the news for them and you get the most recent article from Practical ECommerce quoting a recommendation from Shawn Collins of the top five providers "I'd suggest Commission Junction [CJ.com], LinkShare [Linkshare.com], Performics [Performics.com], Kolimbo [Kolimbo.com] and Share a Sale [Shareasale.com]"

Look at their 2,000 plus merchants and you will find thousands of legitimate (mostly) small businesses who are using this service to expand their sales and help real people make money from sending them these sales. BTW, they do have some larger/well known merchants, such as Rockler Woodworking (I see their brick and mortar stores all over), Chinese Laundry, Old Time Candy Company and Sportif.

Other than being in the industry a long time, I have no special involvement with ShareASale. I used to give three hour courses on how to select and set up Affiliate Programs, and if I were to do that today, ShareASale would be one of the top companies listed. If I had a person asking me where to set up an affiliate program and they did not have a six figure budget, ShareASale would be the number one choice and I'm not sure if there would be a number two. That's how notable and good they are.Bcwaller 18:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep ShareASale is notable from a purely technical comparison with Commission Junction. The Internet's largest interactive and free database of affiliate management solutions and notable networks includes data for ShareASale, LinkShare, and Commission Junction. Of 228 possible features that an affiliate management solution can have, LinkShare fully supports 150, ShareASale supports 134, and Commission Junction 119 supported features. From this objective point of view I submit my vote to keep ShareASale.  Peterkoning 05:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per roy, notable within the field of affiliate marketing, passes verifiability standards. Burntsauce 23:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * keep as per user:cumbrowski. I think the company is noteworthy within the industry it is active in. Shawn Collins 19:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above arguments.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 06:05, 21 May 2007 (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.