Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdEngage

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. As usual, arguments with a basis in Wikipedia policy were given more weight. Because this has been repeatedly recreated I will aslo be WP:SALTing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AdEngage

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}}.

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

Non-notable company. Speedy declined by IP editor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles on this company were created and Speedied several times in August. Looking at the current iteration, it still lacks a claim of notability and the sources offered all relate to a buy-over of the firm in 2008. While these do mention the company's line of business, they do not appear substantial enough for WP:CORPDEPTH, nor do other found items such as this book paragraph appear sufficiently substantial. AllyD (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be deleted, they are HUGE Parker Capital acquired Adengage in 2011 as a platform for a roll-up in the online media space with a $20 million commitment. They have over doubled the company's revenue in 2012, and will be announcing a recent acquisition later this year. This article has less information(I agree) but we should edit this article and make it complete, like I did few edits in the article. It will be complete with solid references very soon, because Adengage is using by millions of users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.46.149.68 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — 78.46.149.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment If they are so HUGE (emphasis copied!), there should be a lot of sources available to verify their notability. Editors are invited to find some. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DONOT Delete It is like we are on bubble to chose whether this article should stick or delete. Well, I use adengage too, its really great, got much better after 2011 when it was bought by a new company, their new team is just awesome. They going to launch their new platform soon, so at the moment (until they launch their updates) they don't have a lot of media coverage which means limited recent secondary sources, it will be easier when they get those updates. They will launch their new platform/updates later this year. I am desperately waiting for the updates because I've seen their new platform in beta, it's awesome! I researched about Adengage to get some strong secondary resources which proves Adengage is a giant or huge, I found one link (AdEngage - adswiki) here AdEngage is on the top, it beats all the other Ad companies which provides the same services. There is no doubt that their revenues are large and fast growing but there isn't independent sources to validate it yet, later it will be available. So typically investments, revenue growth, and acquisitions make companies noteworthy. This article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.204.198.151 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is cool - This article is cool, AdEngage is very big ad company here in US, they operates an online advertising network that displayed more than 100 billion ads during 2010 on thousands of websites around the world.http://www.adswiki.net/ads_wiki/cpccpm-networks/adengage

Also, this helps me to learn more about this company and their new daily updates and offers from here, but this article seems like less information rightnow, I am doing my best to fill it with as information as I can add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.215.129 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — 74.115.215.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment 74.115.215.129 and 78.46.149.68 are both using address space owned by hidemyass.com and may be the same person. noq (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should not be deleted, its very useful and informative for me. They about to launch their new platform, thats dynamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.197.105 (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — 139.190.197.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: Thus far, all keep votes have been WP:ILIKEIT or variations; please make sure that any votes to keep the article are based in policy, and ideally use reliable sources to make a case for keeping the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've had a look for news and web sources, but there really isn't anything that talks about AdEngage enough, certainly nowhere near enough to cite anything like the majority of the article's content. I did see a blog that said it's shut down, so I'm not inclined to think it will get any bigger soon. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Ritchee333. Nothing in the article establishes notability and none of the "sources" could be considered "significant coverage". Fails WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT are not good arguments for keeping the article. The subject must be notable and notability must be verified by reliable sources. Gotta love WP:SPA vote-spam though! Stalwart111 (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently they were acquired by Technorati in 2009 [1] and shut down in 2011.[2]. Then it was apparently relaunched, but the current version is a different business owned by Parker Capital. What they actually do is provide ads for porno sites. They might be worth a brief mention in the Technorati article, but aren't notable enough for a standalone. --John Nagle (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article makes no claim to notability; the creator has a clear conflict of interest and should be blocked for repeatedly deleting the afd template. . . Mean as custard (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is a advertisement and the original author keep removing the deletion template Redalert2fan (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I just blocked an IP for repeatedly removing the speedy deletion tag; the keep votes above are of the kind I haven't seen in AfDs since 2005. Thanks for the memories, but that's all I want. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2012 (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.