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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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]
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]
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]