Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogads

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blogads

Blogads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I feel that this article on an organisation fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There is insignificant and unsubstantive coverage from secondary sources and no indication of importance/significance. Of the 4 references, numbers 1 & 2 are primary sources from the organisation itself, 3 is a passing reference in an article about a customer in a reliable secondary source, 4 is a primary source from a customer. Since I assume that this will be controversial I have decided on WP:Afd rather than Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7. All substantive article editors will be alerted to this. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I've just realised that BlogAds (different capitalisation) was speedily deleted on 1 March 2007 citing "A7 inc" (see [1]) and Blogads was speedily deleted on 15 July 2007 citing "Delete per CSD A7: no assertion of importance or significance of the subject. " - see deletion log entry. I'm happy for an admin to cancel this Afd, speedy delete and WP:SALT both articles. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)a
Blogads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Update: Hello John. I came across the entry a few days ago trying to get more info on what Blogads did. It was horrendous. I checked the discussion page, and someone seemed to agree: "Not that i'm going to do anything about it but this is the worst article I've ever seen on WIkipedia. It is worthless, and I would suggest it for deletion if I knew how to." The article was all fluff, poorly organized, didn't provide any concrete info; it sounded like a poorly-written press release. I tried to do a quick overhaul and took information from their website and basic NYTimes and Google searches as references. I removed other refences as since they were employed in a manner that seemed to simply provide conjectural support to Blogads importance, which, as it turns out, was not conjectural. However, after the deletion flag was raised, I reexamined these references from major publications (Business Week, Wall Street Journal), and did a more extensive search, yielding additional articles from The New York Times and Chicago Tribune. As it's been covered fairly frequently, and with varying degrees of depth (the Business Week and Chicago Tribune articles go fairly in depth and provide interviews with Henry Copeland), all establishing its continued viability and importance to Netroots, Blog Networks, Blog Advertising, etc, I feel that it certainly fits qualifications for notability as defined herein: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I think the new revision asserts its significance on the subject and fixes the problem of past versions, ie them being full of marketing speak and press-release-like jargon without a solid case for significance. -Bob 11:36 EST, 10 January 2008. Sorry, just read the timestamping info. I'll try again today: 38.98.97.90 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Bob

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2008 (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.