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 keep. Krimpet (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem notable: WP:NG1ggyTalk - Chalk 10:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is dangerously close to WP:CSD#G11. Weak keep, but only if notoriety is much better established and backed with cites, and promotional/advert type passages eliminated. Otherwise, delete. Groupthink 11:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Okay, now I feel old. ;) AllAdvantage was for a while synonymous with 'Paid to surf' advertising and, long before there even was Google Adsense, essentially pioneered the entire genre and pushed it into the mainstream. This was the stuff everybody was talking about in IT and VC circles back in 1999. This wasn't just some obscure niche, run-of-the-mill banner ad service - AllAdvantage was huge during the bubble and pretty much symbolize everything that was wrong with this particular business model (if you even want to call it that). I guess you could legitimately claim that we have these guys to thank for the rise of adware, as well as a bunch of other failed business models (free dial-up Internet service with ads, the free-pc.coms of this world, sponsored webtv service). I'd say they're definitely notable. It's just that the article could do a better job of establishing that. -- Seed 2.0 13:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be fairly well sourced. Arkyan • (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps you should look at [[1]] which I think clearly indicates some notability. The current sources may be a tad more dubious, but I think the Washington post doing a front-page story on anything makes it notable. FrozenPurpleCube 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many more cites would you like? There's about a dozen substantive citations there. The article does indeed discuss the impact the company had on the advertising markeplace and the industry as a whole (a mention of its role in popularizing the adware, as suggested above). Finally, I don't get this "it sounds like advertising" thing. The company doesn't exist any more! Check out the articles for some existing companies and there's far more promotional content in those pieces; speaking kindly of the dead isn't advertising. 71.202.86.94 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"On 20 November 2006, it was reported that several AllAdvantage founders were reincarnating the business under a new company, AGLOCO (which stands for "A Global Community")." Promoting the resurrection of a corporate entity is too advertising. Groupthink 20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the discussion page for the article, some have argued that that one sentence is relevant, but some have suggested removing that one sentence. I think to label one factual, sourced, and arguably relevant sentence as inappropriate "promotion" is being a bit hypersensitive. But that's a discussion for the discussion page of the article itself. However it doesn't seem that the existence of one sentence merits the deletion of the article.71.202.86.94 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why I argue for a weak/conditional keep. Groupthink 22:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pffft. Not notable? AllAdvantage is almost a canonical cautionary example of a dot-com bubble story. ("I've got a great idea, let's pay users for surfing the web." "Very good. How do we get money?" "Eh... *dies*") It was clearly a notable company back in the day and clearly worthy of a cautionary tale or two here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It indeed encapsulates a notable industry that may one day be nothing more than history. --MaTrIx 08:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Sorry to jump in late here, but thought I'd mention: the company was notable enough for a sitting United States President and 15 Members of Congress to attend the company's anniversary party in the CEO's backyard [[2]]. Yeah, it was the "go-go" "dotcom" days, but if the President showing up for a party ain't notable in your world, you're traveling in a different plane of existence. Admittedly I'm biased. :) Rayeverettchurch 01:10, 21 May 2007 (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.