Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/icrossing


 * 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 d e lete. east. 718 at 00:33, December 27, 2007

Icrossing

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

DELETE (Wehberf (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)) This entry fails WP:Corp The problem is that the entry has no significant third party sources to merit a Wiki page. There are 10,000 firms like this in the industry this one isn't notable. My fear is that once we start listing SEO firms like this one, Wikipedia will become a SEO haven for firms trying to spam the index. Once we list this one, then 10,000 others will want their listing.
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT (Wehberf (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)) If Wikipedia started listing every SEO firm that got written up in some trade magazine it would turn into a spamfest. I disagree with you that the firm is notable. The exact same services can be purchased from thousands of firms in the US alone. If Google flips a switch, companies like icrossing vanish as the SEO's/SEM's entire business model surrounds Google. Trust me on this.. if this entry is allowed to stay, Wikipedia will get thousands of these submissions and arguments in a matter of days from thousands of SEO firms touting their press saying they are notable.
 * Delete. Does not establish notability except in a trivial sense, i.e. community paper mention. NOT a directory. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability and no independent references shown.  A non-notable web search engine manipulation business contrives a Wikipedia article about itself.  Surprise, surprise, surprise! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A non-notable company. Tavix (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This appears to be a case of bias against a smaller company. Several sources are sited from reputable 3rd party articles.  Including Adweek, Mediapost and OMMA which are highly respected within the online advertsing space.  Jcsquardo (talk) 18:57, 25 December 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.