Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EComXpo (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eComXpo

Tagged as {{

db-repost}}, which it isn't, but there are still some advertising concerns. Unfortunately only two other editors other than the nominator spoke up in the previous nomination, so the question remains: is this notable enough to stick? RFerreira 06:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

None of the sources are
WP:RS, all are web-only publications connected to the industry, blogs and/or press releases. No secondary source verification is forth coming either, in lieu of reliable primary sources. I have no idea how you can state there is verification and reliability. Thanks! --Cerejota 08:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
To give an idea of how unreliable the google notability test is when dealing with companies, I perfomed the same search excluding besides wikipedia, youtube, all of the associated websites to this company, the microsoft ad syndication site, prweb.com, and some other random sites that are obvious paid or unpaid ads (like what this article is)and came up with a bit more than 11,000 hits, from the 54,000 originally[1] this an incredible difference with just a few sites included in the exceptions. Just excluding the few directly associated sites reduce the number by more than 20,000 hits! Unfortunately for eComXpo, wikipedians also happen to have first hand knowledge in SEO, and hit bloating, some of us probably invented the techniques you are using, so we catch it. Thanks!--Cerejota 09:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Siva1979. Note: I created the article again without being aware of the fact that it was previously deleted. I also asked repeatedly other editors who indicated that they don't like the tone of the article ("advert") to make modifications to the article to tone it down. I asked for help, because I don't see it written an advertisement. Notability within the subject of affiliate marketing is IMO out of the question. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is your own page, two are press releases... man, talk about
WP:COI...--Cerejota 08:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:COI? Since when is using something WP:COI? I have no personal or professional gain from the article in Wikipedia, nor am I particular biased regarding this conference. Regarding press releases. Do you know how press releases work? Do you know how often press releases are referenced by Wikipedia articles? The press releases are reference for the attendee figures and my old blog post from over a year ago is a reference to the user experience. I don't mind removing that one, because it is not used to verify important facts. IT only provides an eyewitness report of an user of the system. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are no way affiliated with this company? I mean, we know you have an interest in the affiliate market... But I will
WP:OR. This is why blogs are not reliable sources, anyone can post a blog and say whatever they want. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I am virtually affiliateted with everybody who is somebody in the affiliate marketing industry. Even though its growing quickly and is not as small as it used to be, lets say 5-6 years ago, is it still somewhat managable to keep track of who is who (at least the ones who matter). But the affiliation is negligible in respect to this discussion. Whatever I gained from that affiliation, is less than the time I spent on the subject at Wikipedia (if I would attach a hourly rate to it, what I don't). I was on a panel last year at the eComXpo, came to being because of somebody else who asked me to do it. eComXpo only happened to be the venue for the panel. It could have been any other industry conference as well, e.g.
Linkshare Summit etc. I emailed John Grosshandler to get one missing figure for the article and he was surprised and asked me why I did add an article to Wikipedia. I pointed him to this post of mine [2], which illustrated some of my motivations. He said thank you, said Hi to me, when we met briefly for a minute or two at Affiliate Summit in July (again) and that's it. I did not get any money, perks or "special" speaking arrangements at his conference. I also did not asked for it, because it is not why I am here at Wikipedia. Here you have it. Detailed disclosure. If you have any questions, let me know. I made public who I am, what I do and why I do it for everybody to see. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Did I mention that I did not get a penny for all of this? Including the panel. Professionally engagement does not mean business relationship (where money exchanges hands). Just FYI. I mention this, because one editor is currently running around screaming "COI", "COI". Nix COI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and close as per
    WP:OR. Thanks!--Cerejota 08:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I dispute right here that "iMedia Connections" and "AffiliateTip.com" are "minor" web publications in the affiliate marketing space. AffiliateTip.com is for example a Google News Source for a very long time, due to its importance in that industry. I would also not call "The Web Host Industry Review" a minor publication. The WebmasterRadio reference is for the fact that recordings are available for download and if you listen to the recordings, they will validate that they were broad casted on the air Live at the time of the event. Don't just pick any reference without looking at, what the reference is actually for. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are the worse kind of sources in they represent the opinion of the company about itself. Thaye are allowed as primary sources, but in this AfD they are being used to claim notability. I dispute this use of a self-serving marketing document. They can be useful in an article as a way to do "The company claims X" formulations, but in no way to claim notability, as is being done here when people claim the article is "well sourced". All I have to do is pay PRweb.com some money and they will publish whatever I want, that is precisely why press release are not reliable sources. Please re-read
WP:CORP
(which specifically bans the use of press releases and press release use by secondary sources as a way to establish notability).
As to the other sources, yes perhaps they are notable in their market niche, but notability in wikipedia is dependent on much more than that. Are they nationally notable beyond their niche? Unlike when talking about countries, in which national notability is enough,
WP:CORP is very clear: Secondary sources first, then primary sources. There are no secondary sources that establish notability, none at all. Thanks!--Cerejota 22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Huh? Last time I checked what is considered Notable and what is considered Verifiable and Reliable Sources, did it not state anywhere that an article must be of national or international importance. But even if this is your criteria, affiliate marketers generated roughly $6.5 billion in commissions last year (worldwide) and its growing. eComXpo is the largest conference (in attendance) in the space and not only has exhibitors and attendants from the United States, but from around the world, including UK, Germany, Israel and Asia. $6.5 billion is a lot, but it is a niche at the same time, if you consider that just the marketing spend in 2006 in the United States alone (offline and online) was about $615 billion. $90 billion of that was spent online. (eMarketer). $17 billion was for advertising, which includes search, email, display ads and affiliate marketing. (IAB). The biggest chunk of that is made up by search engine marketing, which started to get more main stream media coverage only recently. A bit over a year ago was it as much of a nice as affiliate marketing. Just FYI and to put things into perspective. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps speedily so. Notwithstanding the letter of the law about how exact duplication of previously required before calling this a repost, the same problems mention in the first AFD seem to be present here. Still a thinly disguised advert that's badly sourced (despite numerous requests for actual reliable sources), with no real evidence of real-world notice or impact. --Calton | Talk 12:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft noticed, but it was an advert, that they will be present at the event. I do not uses cheesy references like that to make it look good. Did you also notice, who attended and had booths there? I would consider this alone evidence of "real world notice". And again, the notability refers to the affiliate marketing industry and not everybody on earth. Please consider this context, before making your statements. Thank you. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I studied the sources. 1) The Microsoft ad center is a blog posting. This is far from reliable, even if it s from Microsoft, and is in fact a primary source of Microsoft participating in a event: Microsoft participates in hundreds of such events around the world daily, so this hardly establishes notability. 2) MSNBC and Chicago Tribune articles are both clearly primary sources based on press releases and/or direct interviews, which do not establish notability: newspapers and news media frequently report on small companies as a way to provide
original research. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
commment The MSNBC and Chicago Tribune use also content from press releases, but it is not a republished press release, which would not matter much, but I wanted to state that. That is what press releases are for! They are for the press, that they can pick it up, validate the facts and write a story about it (which is often only a slightly modified version of a press release). This is how the majority of content in the media is created. It might be (most likely be) channeled through a big news agency such as Reuthers first, but it boils down to the same thing. Not every press release is being picked up by the media though. Actually most press releases are not. The media only picks the ones they believe to be NOTEWORTHY!. Just FYI, in case you did not know who things work in that business. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant what knowledge we have of the process in abny business.
WP:CORP, you seem to continue to miss its criteria. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
No, that is very much important for WP:CORP. A press release on the companies website is not enough to make the company notable as per WP:CORP (the ones in the article that fall under this category were also not meant to establish notability, but are reference for some of the statements made in the article, just FYI). If a larger and well respected publisher of the news media picks up a story based on a press release, then adds its own comments to it (or not) and publishes it, notability is established. They picked that story out of hundreds of stories they could choose from every day, checked the material and considered it important enough to be publicized online and/or in print. They established notability for the subject. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. Its an encyclopedia, remember?! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading of
which we are not. Precisely because we are an encyclopedia you must understand why this content is not encyclopedic and notable, corporations mentioned here should have transcendental importance as market leader is mass markets, or in fields that are highly notable, or meet other criteria that warrants encyclopedic coverage. In this case that criteria is simply not met, and your highly novel interpretation of what constitutes a secondary source is very interesting but ultimately fallacious. You are applying to a corporation the criteria we apply to individuals, which is patently incorrect. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
On a side note regarding the MS blog. A blog happens to be the publishing medium of choice by all major search engines. Where content is published is not important if it is about Verifyability. As you might noticed, the post at the MS blog stated "Microsoft adCenter is a premier sponsor of this event". This verifies statements made by eComXpo themselves (which is not considered a verification of their own claims), that companies like Microsoft have strong interest in the event and even became premium sponsors of the event. They don't do that for any use group or irrelevant conference nobody in the industry even heart of, that happens to discuss search marketing. References in the article have multiple purposes. They have to establish notability and verify the claims made in the article to show that it is not original research and that the stated figures are actually real facts. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the secondary problem with the article. What you just did is called
original research
. It is taking source A and source B and arriving at conclusion C, like you do above. Since the entire article is built in this fashion, creating a novel narrative not supported by secondary sources, that alone is a reason for deletion.
I did? Please elaborate. I think that the article misses some nice flow to make it better readable. Its currently mearly a collection of facts and statements from other sources. I assume that this is also the reason why somebody believed that this is a repost of a deleted article. I did not write the article that was deleted. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, you seem to be confused about blogs.
WP:CORP notability. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not correct, at least not anymore. There were a number of debates going on regarding this, especially since more and more publications use a blog as the medium of choice for online publishing. Some reputable publications switched to the blog format entirely already and other stated using it in addition to their existing software (e.g. WSJ and NYT). This discussion needed to come to a consensus during the nomination of the
WP:RS among others to adapt to the changing reality. You can start at the [article nomination discussion] and then follow the references to discussions elsewhere from there to learn more about this. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:CORP. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:08, 13 August 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EComXpo_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1090686071"