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

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The result was withdrawn due to WP:SNOW.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adland

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The most that can really be said about this blog and its founder is that it exists. The article was also previously full of dead links or links directly to the Adland blog rather than anything supporting this particular blog's notability. The references used are mostly in non-English sources so it is not clear if they are reliable sources, anyway. The English language sources are all various advertising blogs that are compiling things as a list or concern the blog's owner rather than the blog itself.

There was an AFD on this page years ago that also pretty much says the same thing, but no one ever really responded and it was closed as "no consensus". —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You claim "the references used are all in non-English sources" - Business Week, AdWeek, Fast Company and Brand Republic are all reputable English-language sources, not sure why you made that statement. Little Professor (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somehing that missed the final draft. The sources are mostly non-English and the English ones aren't solely about the website but are lists of other websites or an interview with the main blogger.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources in English seem sufficient, one dead link and one link without a cite template were both easily fixed. Someone other than me would have to comment on the non-English articles. Artw (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd also note that you are breaking your ban, Ryulong. @David Fuchs: 71.192.72.22 (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What ban am I violating?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the one about "articles related to GamerGate", if the quick googling of Adland which I just ran is any indication. No fewer than three pro-GamerGate articles popped up from them on the first search page. Given the otherwise rather specious reasoning for deletion, it would seem you're engaged in post-ban axe-grinding against a source which may in fact end up being referenced in the inevitable GG article rewrite.Calbeck (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recent arbcom case which ruled a general topic ban relating to all things Gamergate, broadly construed. This blog writes reliable Gamergate articles. 71.192.72.22 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The decision hasn't been finalized yet, so Ryulong is not in violation of anything currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thargor Orlando is correct. And my concerns for this website's notability are not out of nowhere. Clearly someone else has had concerns otherwise there wouldn't have been a previous AFD or his recent attempts to question the overall notability. It is frankly extremely bad faith to accuse me of violating a topic ban that doesn't exist yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless. Running around trying to cause as much damage as possible before the ban is finalized is not excused. It's just as Calbeck said. This source is likely going to be used in a rewrite of the Gamergate article and you are attempting to de-legitimize it as a reliable source. This should not be ignored. 71.192.72.22 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is in extremely bad faith to assume those things of me. And the nature of this website as a reliable source (although why you would want an advertising website to be used as a source for an article about what is claimed to be about ethics in video game journalism) and its presence as its own article on Wikipedia are separate. This can be a reliable source and not have an article on itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My support for keeping this article stands. You present no solid reasoning for why it should be deleted. 71.192.72.22 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I don't really buy your "bad faith" claim about these assumptions. You have been extensively sanctioned for numerous problems relating to Gamergate. Now you are here, out of the blue, trying to get this article deleted. And this blog just so happens to be publishing Gamergate articles which you disagree with. 71.192.72.22 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that are presently in use seem to just list Adland amongst several other blogs of equal import and the non-English ones cannot be determined to be reliable sources in the nations from which they originate. My qualms with this website's notability are unrelated to whatever opinion you think I may have regarding Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per yourself, that AFD is from "years ago" and closed with "no consensus". That is a null result, not supportive of anything in particular. And my apologies, I haven't read much of the actual ArbCom notice. I'm going off the Guardian article which indicated the case had been closed with a definitive ban. Which simply brings us back to there being no particular reason to delete this article.Calbeck (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such an AFD where there was not even any "Keep" or "Delete" votes cast should have been taken as an expired WP:PROD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." Even if there was no opposition to deletion at that time, there clearly is now. Barring a sudden massive influx of DELETE requests, it seems the matter is largely settled.Calbeck (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am only remarking that the AFD from 2011 should have likely been converted into a glorified PROD considering there was no opposition at the time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that GameOn (talk · contribs), who re-added the notability tag per Ryulong's citation above, has not otherwise contributed to Wikipedia in over a year, and has made no recent argument anywhere. Further, the template was inexplicably added with a date of January 2011, predating the other AFD. In my mind, it strains credulity to imagine that someone would come back to Wikipedia after over a year, and have their very first action be to re-open a 4-year-old action they received no satisfaction on, without having been WP:CANVASSED in some way. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Little Professor and Artw. Notable vis a vis media and advertising. International impact may be worth adding, see India Economic Times coverage [1] Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing you've returned to Wikipedia to oppose a proposal I made.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's more amazing that User:GameOn appears to have returned to support it, after an hiatus nearly 19 times as long. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not seeing any particular reason to go after this article. If "it is not clear" whether or not the sources are reliable, then it would seem clarification would be the first step before assuming deletion is appropriate.Calbeck (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable due to the reliable source coverage already in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Professor and Artw. Also, comment: Ryulong is not currently topic-banned, and he's technically correct about notability vs. reliability (though having one without the other is rare). Random ^(?) 20:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps snowball keep. Given that Adland is considered one of the most influential advertising industry blogs (as per the lede) I think that more than satisfies notability. It could certainly use some work to expand from it's near-stub quality, but the solution to that is certainly not deleting the article. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Svenska Dagbladet, Dagens Media, and Resumé, are all major Swedish news outlets so they are certainly good for establishing notability. How about you do a little research before you dismiss sources for not aspeaking a da English?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as international trade sources have covered it. Saw no reason for nomination. Frr5 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Seems BEFORE wasn't even followed .... Anyway Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Auerbachkeller & Litte Profesor & Artw. Enough already said. Avono (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adland's notability is sufficiently documented. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Strong keep The lede of the article already clearly establishes notability from reliable sources: In July 2011 Brand Republic listed Adland as the worlds 6th most influential advertising blog,[2] while Business Insider in July 2012 put Adland on a list of the 22 most influential.[3] The argument that a blog with that much influence is somehow "not notable", is absolutely risible. Advertising is big business, doncha know. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2015 (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.