Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trademob


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Trademob

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This AfD exists thanks to Tomaso67, who called its notability into question, leading me to check it out, and find that Tomaso67's doubts seem to be fully jusrified. The article was originally written as an unambiguously promotional piece by a single-purpose conflict of interest account called Trademob. Fortunately, much of the promotional content has now been removed, but it is still somewhat promotional in tone. However, the reason for nominating it for deletion is that the subject does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards. Of the five references cited, one does not mention Trademob at all, one is on a self-declared PR site, and the others are on marketing/business promotion sites. Searches for coverage also fail to produce evidence of notability. On a Google search, for example, the first page of hits includes www.trademob.com, Wikipedia, CrunchBase (which is an open wiki, largely used by businesses to post promotional pages about themselves), a web-business promotional site called thenextweb, linkedin, twitter. Looking further down the list of Google hits, one finds many pages about Trademob, but on examination almost all of them turn out to be on sites that cannot be regarded as independent reliable sources, as for example a page which looks like a news report, but is posted at http://www.kennet.com/news/press-releases/mobile-mobile-app-marketing-platform-trademob-raises-15-million-in-series-b-funding-led-by-kennet-partners/, which, as the URL suggests, is a press release. The overall impression is that there is a lot about Trademob only because Trademob has put a lot of effort into publicising itself, rather than because reliable independent sources have paid significant attention to it, and the Wikipedia article was clearly part of this effort. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising -related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. My analysis broadly concurs with JBW's. I consider all of the current sources to be basically worthless. The best source I could find is, which gives some indication of what Trademob does (besides raise venture capital and write press releases). I think that could be a solid supplementary source, but can't support the article on its own. Kilopi (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  03:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete I agree with the nom's assessment that the article is still somewhat promotional, and befittingly for a mobile ad company, they really know how to pump out the PR. I found one article that qualifies as an independent source and is in depth: GigaOM article on click fraud. Is GigaOM considered reliable? If so, then this source counts as an RS. But one RS is still below WP:GNG notability guidelines and below WP:CORPDEPTH notability guidelines as well. Unless more reliable sources can be found, I recommend deletion with no prejudice to recreation if more RS become available. --Mark viking (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2013 (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.