Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogads
- 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)[reply]
Blogads
I feel that this article on an organisation fails
- Comment - I've just realised that BlogAds (different capitalisation) was speedily deleted on ]
- Blogads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ]
- Keep after recent cleanup, there appear to be sufficient sources to qualify for ]
- Keep, article has been sufficiently improved demonstrating the notability of the company. --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.