Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pay for placement

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The result was Keep per withdrawn. Non admin closure CenariumTalk 17:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pay for placement

Pay for placement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Blatant advertising. The two external links on the article are to Pay per click marketing companies offering this service under this new name P4P. I Googled and could not find sources for this article. Igor Berger (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems like blatant advertising.--RyRy5 Got something to say? 06:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There's numerous articles on pay for placement shown by a quick google search. Suggest an edit may be in order. --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 09:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    Can you find some articles for us? I Googled for P4P and could not find anything but SEO Websites offering Adwards and other PPC program offerings. So unless we can source it per WP:RS it should be deleted. It is not Google Adwards or Yahoo Overture, which are both PPC not P4P. So I hope whatever you find is not promoting the company's SEO services. Igor Berger (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You need to read these articles. Only two breafly discuss P$P and it is not totally legal. It is not Adwords like the article states. It is about by a place in organic search results. It is cloaking and illegal. Adword say it is a sponsored advertising next to the served link. P4P display the results without saying it is sposored advertising. If this article is kept it needs to be completly rewritten. Read this [7] and this A bit vague but you will get the drift that it is not Adwords PPC model. Igor Berger (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not disagreeing that it needs an overhaul (see my original comment). --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 10:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - what's wrong with the sources in the article - look like third-party reliable sources to me, so satisfies WP:V Fritzpoll (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article has been fixed to reflect my main consern. It has been rewritten and is now notable per WP:RS. At this point of time I would like to withdraw my nomination for deletion, and let Wikipedia editors improve the article even more. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable and looks like nominator retracted Afd. SunCreator (talk) 23:03, 12 April 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.