Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Advertising

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Advertising. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Advertising|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Advertising. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Advertising/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Advertising

Asset.tv

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Tagged for multiple issues. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created as a promotional article, this has always lacked sourcing showing sufficient notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord

AfDs for this article:

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

Per Talk:Raegan Revord#Requested move 19 December 2024, this title was previously salted and the subject's notability is doubful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... there is a pending AfC submission at Draft:Raegan Revord. Ultimately, the two versions should be merged; the draft has a lot sourcing given the repeated questions about passing WP:NACTOR. It's a borderline case at the moment, but a bit WP:IAR in this case, as thousands of people a day are looking for an article on this actress who starred in a successful popular mainstream sitcom, and the only star from that show for whom we don't have an article due to it being caught up in WP bureaucracy. The multiple AfC rejections caused the page to be salted, which caused someone to create it at a disambiguated title, and here we are, when we shouldn't be; the procedures have failed us in this case. So, merge the two versions and let's stop failing our users, topic easily passes WP:GNG. 03:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Mdewman6 (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the sources in this article, I don't see it easily passing GNG. People is mostly quotes from her, so is EW. Doesn't make them useless as sources, but not good from the WP:N perspective. WP:BLP-goodness of looper/thetab etc not obvious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Apart from qualifying for WP:GNG, she seems to have won an award at Family Film Award[1] and a nomination at Young Artist Award [2] thus may pass WP:ANYBIO, merging with Draft:Raegan Revord will be appreciated because the draft is with much information also if this article is deleted per WP:TOOSOON, draft has no reason to still stand ANU^writes 06:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- fails WP:NACTOR due to not yet having that second significant role, so best covered in the Young Sheldon article. The claim of meeting WP:ANYBIO rests on the Family Film Award, which does not seem to meet the "a well-known and significant award or honor" requirement by at least this basic sniff test: there's no article on it. Argument that other people in the show have articles and thus she should have one is basically a WP:INHERITED one. However, Draft status is a reasonable place for someone on the edge of but not meeting WP:NACTOR -- one significant role puts her halfway there. It allows us to maintain it while waiting for that second role. A draft does not cost us much, and it would be silly to delete all the work that has been done on it. If for some reasons this is kept, it would be better to merge with... or really, largely replace it with... the draft version. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it's tangled. First off, this is the perfect case why we should not religiously apply the rules. Revord is easily too well-known not to have a Wikipedia article, and deleting articles on actors that our readers see on their TVs for years in massively successful shows for the technical reason "that is their only notable credit" is a complete failure to be with the times. It also means popular actors below 18 are arbitrarily barred from having Wikipedia entries, simply because it is much less likely to achieve our threshold before you have worked in the industry for some time. Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away. Second, this article must have become a personal quest for some Wikipedians to stop at all costs. It should have been accepted long ago, and far too many editing hours has already been wasted by me and others on the futile hope these editors would understand that there can be exceptions to the current NACTOR rule and that Revord easily qualifies as such. Sometimes child actors decide to leave the spotlight, and if that happens with Revord, we should first have the article, and then we can remove it, if it becomes clear that Young Sheldon will be her only significant credit for the forseeable future. That other articles with a similar level of notability (take Aubrey Anderson-Emmons for instance) remain unchallenged is likely only because of the arbitrary capricious nature of a process where a few or even a single editor can make it their personal goal to come up with whatever procedural objection that's needed to stop an article, zero common sense required, while not spending any energy on stopping other articles with more or less claim to fame. That this article weren't accepted years ago remains a clear example of Wikipedia failure, full stop, and this is our chance to rectify a long-standing mistake. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any argument for/against deletion needs to include everything added to Draft:Raegan Revord, which this article creator seems to have ignored/bypassed entirely. While that's not ideal, if we decide to delete this article, that will set back the acceptance of the draft for even more years, and that is worse than accepting this article (and then merging in the draft). CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away." Disagree, quite strongly. The internet is bigger than WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is kept, the draft should be back-filled into the history. As it stands, the accepted version in mainspace sounds nearly identical to the older rejected and multiply-declined draft. Therefore, the draft's history should remain to give original credit for those words. And this also casts doubt on the authenticity of the current article's editors' contributions as being truely their own, vs end-run around the non-acceptance of the older draft. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Consider this to be a more succinct statement than what I tried to say in my Keep but it's tangled comment above. CapnZapp (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a general acceptance in this discussion that the draft version is better (whether or not it's sufficient), might the simplest way to handle this if the decision is "keep" to simply delete the live version and move the draft into place? I don't quickly note anything from the live version that would need to be merged in. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mdewman6, ANUwrites and CapnZapp. Subject has been working as an actress for over ten years and has had about 150 credited TV appearances, with most of those in episodes of a top-rated TV series. More than sufficient to establish clear notability for the purpose of having a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to clarify, since you included me in your "per": There's lots of people with 100+ television credits that Wikipedia rightly ignore, if those are all bit roles. I'm not (strongly) arguing she fulfills the current NACTOR criteria (though I wouldn't be surprised if she is), I'm arguing Wikipedia's criteria are wrong if we can't add articles on young actors simply because not only do they need one successful show, they need two. This heavily tilts Wikipedia's coverage toward adult actors and away from young superstars, sometimes with massive online presences, that people are interested in but our stodgy project choose to ignore. But child actors aren't simply children whose integrity we should protect above all - these individuals and their parental guardians CHOSE public life. They clearly appreciate publicity more than privacy. (No, you can't be part of Hollywood anonymously unless you're a baby) Also, in this case Young Sheldon was a major show where it just so happened that one of its main cast wasn't bluelinked in the main article... and that was (of course) a female. Gender equality is another heavy argument to maintain an article on Revord. All this to say that if you "per" me, you per "so what she hasn't had a second notable role, here we should clearly make an exception from NACTOR". CapnZapp (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be arguing that we should have lower standards for child actors than for adult ones, which seems precisely backwards to me. To the degree that a child actor is making any decision, they are not informed maturely in making themselves so public. There are several ways in which Wikipedia considers minors worthy of additional protection, and Ms. Revord is still a minor at this point. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cydoor

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSites

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced only to press releases and "fastest growing companies" type lists. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Jersey. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has lots of media coverage

06:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: The SmartSites article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations as it is a recognized and award-winning digital marketing agency with significant industry impact. The company has received multiple accolades, including rankings on the Inc. 5000 list for several consecutive years and recognition by Clutch.co as a leading agency in web design and digital marketing. These achievements have been covered by independent, reliable sources, demonstrating the company's influence and relevance in the digital marketing space.

Additionally, SmartSites has been featured in reputable publications such as Forbes, Entrepreneur, and Inc. magazines, which provide independent coverage beyond trivial mentions. This establishes the company’s notability under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (GNG). The article provides verifiable, well-sourced information, contributing to the encyclopedia's goal of documenting notable organizations.

Deletion would remove a valuable resource for users seeking information on a player in the digital marketing industry. Instead, any concerns about content quality or neutrality can be addressed through constructive edits. Hussainxyz (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brünnhilde (cat)

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

This article is about a couple of old photographs that "went viral" last year. There's no evidence that this is a subject that attracted significant coverage in the new or elsewhere and as such the page fails WP:NOTABILITY. It is internet pop culture trivia. Ermenrich (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator): I believe this subject passes WP:GNG. It has non-trivial coverage from secondary sources independent of the subject. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources exactly, we have the Library of Congress and what appear to be blogs. Neither of which is reliable or terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semafor isn't a blog. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not, but I doubt it's very good for establishing notability on a subject.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Library of Congress Magazine (November/December 2020), p. 11. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, it got no coverage in RS. The best I could find was in Boing Boing [3] and the Toronto Public Library kids blog [4]... That pretty much shows this isn't a notable concept. The photo is from 1936, so there is obviously no lasting influence if we're only talking about it now, almost 100 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wouldn't even call "Boing Boing" reliable, seems like a bunch of random crap. I mean, Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and Fart Piano??? I'm having a laugh just looking at the site's contents. E_F⁵ 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that writing about strange subjects indicates that a source is unreliable. "Skibidi Toilet Fortnite" has also been written about by IGN, Polygon, and The New York Times, which are all reliable sources. Claiming that having strange article titles or subjects disqualifies a website's reliability just doesn't hold up. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...yes, and none of those are Boing Boing or known exclusively for covering Skibid Toilet Fortnite and related such things.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boing Boing is not known exclusively for covering Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and related such things. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By related things I meant "etc." See the list by Ef5.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, they write about all sorts of non-notable things, which doesn't establish notability in my view. One source is not enough to establish notability, and LOC maintains a huge database, and also doesn't establish notability. All other sources are trivial/non-RS. E_F⁵ 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing significant about it. Deriannt (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to LOC curator Anne Wilkes Tucker, they looked at a million photos, isolated 4000 from that set, and then selected 440 for the exhibition. The process took several years, with the end result reflecting the visual history of America. This particular photo of a cat was chosen for its "whimsical" nature. According to the Associated Press which reviewed the exhibition in Los Angeles (Rogers, John, April 21, 2018, Library of Congress brings America to life in LA photo show, AP) the photo is important in American culture because it represents an early example of the "funny cat picture" from 1936. Photo curator Beverly Brannan told the AP: "Around the turn of the century, in the early 19-somethings, people liked to make pictures of cats and dogs, putting them at tea tables with dolls, putting clothes on them". Rogers writes that the photo reveals "that at least one aspect of photography hasn't changed much in 150 years". Steve Appleford covered the exhibition in a bit more detail for the Los Angeles Times, going into the backstory of the exhibition, why Tucker chose the cat photo (it made her laugh). A year later, Douglas Perry of The Oregonian included the image of Brünnhilde in his May 2019 article about early historical photos of cats in America, referring to it as part of a select set of "memorable American cat images". Mark Jenkins reviewed the exhibition for The Washington Post in April 2022 and highlighted the significance of the selection of these particular images, representing 440 of the total collection of 15 million in the LOC. Is the image notable outside this exhibition? Unlikely, but it achieved notability by being included in it and being described as an early, pre-internet example of what eventually became known as the Cats and the Internet phenomenon. What's unusual, is that we have no coverage of the early 20th century practice of dressing cats up in photos that Brannan told the AP about, and yet here it is and people want to delete it. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both whimsical cat photos, and famous cats, are ubiquitous now and are unquestionably part of our online culture. Brünnhilde is an early example and is significant for that reason. Wikipedia features an article about the oldest surviving photograph even though it is not really significant except for that. Wikipedia also has an article for Morris the Cat, who is unexceptional apart from also being a famous cat. --WillisBlackburn (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of subject where I'm inclined to err on the side of weak keep, but a suggestion for Di (they-them): whip up a quick article for Not an Ostrich, which is much more solidly notable, and merge this into a dedicated section of that article. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I will do that. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negative keyword

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

Poorly sourced article that fails WP:GNG. Encoded Talk 💬 15:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Documentation from Microsoft [5] and Apple [6] can be added to the references. The blog post reference can be removed. That makes room for others: [7] [8] [9].

Book references are also forthcoming: [10] [11] [12] [13]

The article is crap now, but it seems like it can be improved and the phrase is notable and common. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Keyword research as an AtD. I am unconvinced by these sources. The Microsoft and Apple sources are how-to guides for using keywords with MS/Apple products. The blog posts are not reliable sources. The first two books cited above are published by Wiley but each one (and the third book) devotes less than a page to "negative keywords." The fourth book reference is from Lulu and is thus not reliable as an WP:SPS. All told, these brief references aren't really WP:SIGCOV, and per WP:NOPAGE the subject matter can be covered encyclopedically and appropriately with reliable sources at the parent topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions