Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickbooth

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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clickbooth

Clickbooth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced advertisement for a non-notable online business. Contested proposed deletion (old, not mine). Google News finds only PR sources. "References" are talking about its business model generally rather than about the named business specifically. Article says that The network was founded by John Lemp in September 2002 who is also the current acting CEO of IntegraClick, Inc. and the originating user was User:Johnintegraclick, suggesting conflict of interest. Hardly any of the text is about the business; most of it is about how its business model will help you make money fast on the Internet:

Performance based advertising also known as CPA advertising has become increasingly popular throughout the past year as major online players... have entered the space ....

The popularity of such networks is due to the increased focus on the actual worth of each user and the ability of CPA to combat both click and impression fraud

- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete- no coverage in independent reliable sources. Press releases abound, including rehashed press releases, but no substantial independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The content in the article fails to state a claim which indicates notability and I failed to find a source providing more information in a Google search. Blue Rasberry (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page is currently undergoing edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.129.210 (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Website Magazine and Technorati are notable website publications independent from the business which are included in the article. Duelfx (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Upon research for the business, I have found independent coverage coming from Wall Street Journal and Tampa Bay Business Journal as well as other reliable sources with local news coverage. Business is a member of the Direct Marketing Association and the Performance Marketing Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.58.160.55 (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A lot of references have been added. Looking at the version as of this moment, there are 15 references:
    1. Website magazine just ranks a bunch of companies with no commentary about the company. Not significant coverage.
      1. Keep - this was also included in the print magazine and was a worldwide impartial #1 traffic rank in the affiliate marketing field, a field with players such as Google and Yahoo in it and that news and noteworthiness of a company is considered insignificant? We should delist Google as well then.
    1. Inc. is just providing a company profile from its list of top whatever companies. Not significant coverage.
      1. Keep - coverage was ran in the August 2009 Inc magazine article featuring this company. Also Inc._(magazine)#Inc._500_and_Inc._5000 fastest growing companies list is the equivalent of the Fortune 500 list - this is extremely significant news..
    1. Link is dead for me. The headline is about Google.
    2. Technorati is blog aggregator and does not represent a reliable source.
      1. Keep - this article is not a blog article but instead an article written by the editorial news staff. Are we simply not including online news organizations as credible, because that logic would de-credibilize Wikipedia which I know and love.
    1. Adotas article is just a passing mention. Not significant coverage.
    2. WSJ is using Clickbooth as an example for the article. Coverage is more than a passing mention but still not very substantial.
      1. Keep - Wall Street Journal major worldwide coverage that specifies a company to model is not considered significant in your eyes? Nothing would be left in Wikipedia?
    1. This is the same reference as #1 which is not significant.
    2. This is just a big list with no actual coverage about the company.
    3. This is the same reference as #2 and is not significant
    4. Here is a link the the article online. It is an article written by a Clickbooth employee. As such, it is not an independent source.
    5. Here is a link to the article online. I can find no mention of Clickbooth. In any event, it's a mish mash of minor items so any appearance in such a list does not represent significant coverage.
    6. The Up and Comers article is about a Clickbooth employee, and not about Clickbooth
    7. This Florida Technology Journal article is actually about Clickbooth, and represents a reliable source covering the company.
    8. Another list of something article with no significant coverage.
    9. A minor mention going over the state of the regional economy. Not significant coverage.
    • So after 15 references, we have one article that represents significant coverage in a local business journal. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have to disagree. To be listed in those references give them notability. These are third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.217.219.53 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 15 references where all have credibility and only include information that has been backed by thorough research and fact-checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.217.219.53 (talk)
    • comment - Aside from one, none of them represent significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Contrary to above, news on Clickbooth was found by doing a Google Search. Substantial coverage in Adotas article linked here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.95.46.120 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: keep votes are suss here. don't have time to evaluate merits at the moment.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this articles needs a few changes to make it a bit neutral other than that company has a alexa rank of 2,108. I did a few checks on the reference links and it seems to be most of them are reliable.I feel this deserves to stay on wiki.--Criketfan —Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You think regular editors don't realize votes like this are poo-poo?--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: OK, i looked hard for sources, this is a nice little growing internet ad-pushing company located somewhere in Florida, United States, it is not notable. The keep vote are all suspicious from non-regular editors.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was originally against it but the recently added references make this a no brainer. According to the Wikipedia guide for notability Wikipedia:CORP - A source must be recognized by an independent source by... "at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". This company has been recognized internationally, nationally, and regionally with very depth centric, independent articles in the Wall Street Journal (International), Fox News (regional), ABC News (regional), Tampa Bay Business Journal (regional), Gulf Coast Business Review (regional), Sarasota Herald Tribune (Local - X), Technorati (national staff writer), Inc Magazine (national), And others on that list. The other criteria before deletion is to speak to an industry source prior to deletion to find out if the company is noteworthy. I noticed The many National Industry specific rankings and articles for Affiliate Marketing so if they were our source that would be a positive however I'd like us to have an Affiliate Marketing admin weigh in?

The purpose of these deletions is to remove companies of nothing notable from utilizing wikipedia to spam search engines and resulting in zero additional information that can be shared among the community. The purpose of saving an article is because it reports on something of note that someone else will be able to learn or gain new credible knowledge from. I feel this easily weighs more towards the second statement - I found a negative article and added it as well to ensure the impartialness of the article. --User:Rogerwabbit —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 9 April 2011 (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/Clickbooth&oldid=1070188104"