The result was keep.
The main argument, made by the nominator multiple times in the discussion, was that WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a policy trumps WP:GNG, a "mere" guideline. Multiple people pointed out (correctly) that WP:NOTDIRECTORY only mandates deletion if the problem cannot be fixed by editing (which WP:WHATISTOBEDONE mentions as an alternative of what to do when a page really violates WP:NOT). Also, not explicitly mentioned, but thusly implied, WP:ATD is also a policy and it says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." (mirroring the aforementioned advice on WP:NOT).
Regarding possible COI editors hindering cleanup, there is no rule that says a page has to be deleted if such editors work on it, even if they make it hard to fix problems in the article. After all, the WP:COI and WP:PAY guidelines were created to deal with such users and the WP:BLOCK policy allows blocking single-purpose accounts.
The nominators claim "WP:NOT is in fact policy alone as it's the highest policies we have" does not take into account that despite the existence of Wikipedia:Five pillars, there is no actual rule that says any of those pillars is more important than say the editing or deletion policies, both of which have been cited here in favor of retaining the article (albeit cleaned up).
Other editors arguing against notability have no longer done so after Cunard provided a list of sources, so consensus on notability was established pretty clearly.
Considering all this and weighing the various arguments made, consensus for keeping the article existed at this time. Regards SoWhy 21:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Advertising sourced by only either published or republished PR announcements, trade publications, interviews, listings and all similar and a careful search here shows nothing but exact PR, and that alone is a concern for us here at AfD because there's nothing for genuine independent notability and substance and certainly not when advertising is involved, hence violating our policies. As always, WP:NOT is non-negotiable and simply because the last AfD was withdrawn has no bearing here, because the advertising has continued, and I know we've certainly changed since 2014 about advertising and we've certainly changed against such consensus as "It's sourced!". SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The book notes:
RadiumOne was able to make an immediate impact because it gave advertisers far more up-to-date information to make value judgements. RadiumOne's platform runs and generates data in real time. Its agility comes from being able to continually adjust content to match the changing social web demands of web users — a first for online advertising. With RadiumOne's own tools to map user behavior — they labelled it their Dynamic Audience Platform — they can apply lessons learnt from statistics based on live interaction. This lets RadiumOne's analysts segment and then match advertising to the most appropriate users, with a stream of real-time information to constantly inform their positioning. The technology can also identify new audiences from first-time site visitors. Being able to scale new and existing audiences in this way gives RadiumOne an advantage because, in having granular detail on web users, they can accurately predict footfall and reponse rates for advertising. RadhiumOne are, therefore, making online advertising less of an art, more of a science, with clearer returns on investment.
The article notes:
ComScore lists San Francisco-based RadiumOne as the ninth largest online ad network, with 169.7 million unique visitors in January. Criteo SA, another Web-advertising agency, had $616.3 million sales in 2013 and ranked fifth, while Rocket Fuel Inc. had revenue of $240.6 million and was 16th on Comscore’s list.
RadiumOne has narrowed its search of lead investment banks to two, and anticipates that the IPO will take place in the third quarter of 2014, the people said.
The article notes:
RadiumOne has its main offices in a tall building in the heart of downtown San Francisco -- just two blocks from CNET's headquarters. The company was founded in September 2009 by Chahal, who had already struck gold once when he sold a previous ad network, BlueLithium, to Yahoo for $300 million in 2007, and who won Ernst & Young's 2013 entrepreneur of the year award in the platform technology category. On its website, RadiumOne says it "builds intelligent software that automates media buying, making big data actionable for marketers and connects them to their next customer."
That's the kind of description guaranteed to induce yawns for those not deeply involved in ad networks. But for an enterprise company, making money is the way to the hearts of investors, and it's clear RadiumOne was attractive enough to venture capitalists to raise a $10.5 million A-round of funding in late 2009, and a $21 million B-round in March 2011 led by Crosslink Capital. That round valued the company at $200 million. Some think an IPO is in its near future.
...
On April 27, RadiumOne issued a press release announcing Chahal's firing, and his replacement by COO Bill Lonergan. "Bill has an extraordinary professional background and has helped build BlueLithium and RadiumOne into industry leading brands," the company said in its statement. "We are confident he will continue RadiumOne's impressive trajectory."
The release made no mention of Chahal's legal problems. Nor, of course, did it mention the company had somehow allowed a man wanted by the Secret Service to be hired, and promoted to a position as director of engineering.
The article notes:
The company, gWallet Inc., is being rebranded as RadiumOne Inc. and will use “social retargeting” technology to analyze how users interact with one another to find consumers most closely identified with a brand’s customer base. Chahal said RadiumOne will outperform any previous ad network or refund the full cost of campaigns that run on the new network.
...
RadiumOne aims to analyze social interactions to place the consumers on a social graph that will accurately describe their behavior. The company will take the social data and segment the various interactions to form “social clusters” of people who know each other and share common interests. The company will then leverage these new groups to serve ads.
...
He founded gWallet last year to provide offers marketing to social-gaming companies by sealing deals directly with large brands, rather than working through ad networks. GWallet will continue to live under the RadiumOne umbrella, contributing data to the new network.
...
The San Francisco-based company in December raised $10 million in Series A financing led by Adams Street Partners and Trinity Ventures, and has raised $12.5 million in total. ...
The article notes:
Documents reviewed by the Journal, dated before the judge’s ruling, show the lengths to which RadiumOne board members and lawyers strategized on how to minimize the impact of the case on the planned IPO filing, which never materialized.
Venture capitalist and one-time California state controller Steve Westly, who joined RadiumOne’s board in November 2013, suggested in a Dec. 3, 2013, email to Mr. Chahal that lawyer Willie Brown, former San Francisco mayor and State Assembly speaker, “believes that he can help you.” Mr. Westly, who is considering a second run for governor, wrote that Mr. Brown knows the district attorney and “may be able to ‘back him off,’” adding that Mr. Brown is a “very good deal broker.”
The article notes:
Now the serial entrepreneur is deep into his third online advertising startup, San Francisco's RadiumOne. This time, he's looking at social and mobile advertising, and how best to display online advertisements based on a person's use of Twitter and other online social activity.
RadiumOne began as gWallet, its a loyalty and rewards program, which allows Internet users to receive virtual currency for doing things such as answering advertising-sponsored surveys. It has since expanded to RadiumOne.
The article notes:
RadiumOne, once a high flyer in the advertising technology world, has less than three months of cash left and is being turned down by dozens of investors.
That’s what two anonymous inside sources are telling VentureBeat tonight. Both said that the company hired RBC three months ago to lead its new investment round, but the investment bank has come up bare.
The article notes:
RadiumOne, an online ad network that aims to combine social and intent data to serve ads, is getting into the group messaging space today. The company is releasing a free, group messaging app for iOS and Android called PingMe Messenger that allows users to message each other in real-time, across platforms.
...
For background, RadiumOne mines social data and use this information to identify relevant consumers for brands. Through what Chahal calls “social retargeting,” RadiumOne analyzes how users interact with one another on social networks to find the consumers that identify with a brand’s current customer base, and then serves advertisements to this audience across the company’s network of publishers. The company just raised $21 million in new funding at a $200 million valuation.
The article notes:
RadiumOne provides businesses with marketing and analytics tools that generate data that the startup uses to target ads for its clients. It earns a cut of the advertising spend for accurately targeting the ads to potential and existing customers on the web, mobile, video, and Facebook. It’s said to be profitable, unlike some other players in the space that are still burning venture capital.
The company has raised $33.5 million from Crosslink Capital, Adams Street Partners, and Trinity Ventures. CEO Gurbaksh Chahal, who recently pleaded not guilty to allegations of assault, provided the company’s initial funding with proceeds from previously selling the startups BlueLithium and ValueClick for $300 million and $40 million respectively.
The article notes:
Adtech company RadiumOne has raised a $54 million 50/50 equity/debt financing round, which it plans to use to open more offices across Asia-Pacific and Europe, expand its data and platform technology, and fund more sales and marketing hires.
The round appears to be a sign that the company is in stable financial health. RadiumOne tells Business Insider the company reported $125 million in revenue in 2014, that it is on track to achieve around $200 million in revenue this year, and that it is net profitable.
The financing should also squash anonymous rumors that circulated the adtech industry in March that RadiumOne was struggling to raise capital and that it had just three months of cash left. At the time, RadiumOne chief executive William "Bill" Lonergan sent out a memo to staff flatly denying the allegations, adding that no jobs were at risk.
It has been around four years since RadiumOne, previously valued at $500 million, last raised investment. The last investment was $21 million in Series B financing, according to CrunchBase.
Cunard (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
That the current version of the article contains promotional content does not mean the article should be deleted. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.
Cunard (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
RadiumOne was able to make an immediate impact because it gave advertisers far more up-to-date information to make value judgements. RadiumOne's platform runs and generates data in real time. Its agility comes from being able to continually adjust content to match the changing social web demands of web users — a first for online advertising. With RadiumOne's own tools to map user behavior — they labelled it their Dynamic Audience Platform — they can apply lessons learnt from statistics based on live interaction. This lets RadiumOne's analysts segment and then match advertising to the most appropriate users, with a stream of real-time information to constantly inform their positioning. The technology can also identify new audiences from first-time site visitors. Being able to scale new and existing audiences in this way gives RadiumOne an advantage because, in having granular detail on web users, they can accurately predict footfall and reponse rates for advertising. RadhiumOne are, therefore, making online advertising less of an art, more of a science, with clearer returns on investment.(Clear advertisement with even guide information to customers such as "Scale new and existing audiences, RadiumOne are making online advertising, more of a science, with clearer returns on investments) Thus clear violations of WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing and WP:What Wikipedia is not #Advertising
The round appears to be a sign that the company is in stable financial health. RadiumOne tells Business Insider the company reported $125 million in revenue in 2014, that it is on track to achieve around $200 million in revenue this year, and that it is net profitable.(Clear company quote)
It has been around four years since RadiumOne, previously valued at $500 million, last raised investment. The last investment was $21 million in Series B financing, according to CrunchBase.(CrunchBase is one of their own company business profiles, hence not independent and therefore violating even WP:CORPDEPTH which states such contents are unacceptable)
ComScore lists San Francisco-based RadiumOne as the ninth largest online ad network, with 169.7 million unique visitors in January. Criteo SA, another Web-advertising agency, had $616.3 million sales in 2013 and ranked fifth, while Rocket Fuel Inc. had revenue of $240.6 million and was 16th on Comscore’s list. RadiumOne has narrowed its search of lead investment banks to two, and anticipates that the IPO will take place in the third quarter of 2014, the people said.(Another clear company quote, down to the blatant specifics of their finances, which violates both WP:What Wikipedia is not#Advertising and WP:CORPDEPTH)
RadiumOne provides businesses with marketing and analytics tools that generate data that the startup uses to target ads for its clients. It earns a cut of the advertising spend for accurately targeting the ads to potential and existing customers on the web, mobile, video, and Facebook. It’s said to be profitable, unlike some other players in the space that are still burning venture capital.(Clear advertising since it makes unsupported claims as "said to be profitable, unlike some other players" which is both vague and also PR-form since it only ascertains their own company puffery)
Although you've now created a Wikilink for this conversation, [1], that points to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a directory, you haven't explained the relationship of the Wikilink to the conversation. As stated at WP:VAGUEWAVE, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand." In this case, you've also yet to explain which part is relevant, and it is a long section. I found two sentences that use both the words "business" and "list".
* "Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings."
* "7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances..." That section goes on to say, "Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose."
Do you agree that there is (1) no list of patent filings in the article, and (2) no listing of business alliances without supporting sourced prose?
Unscintillating (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
this is a company interview with the businessmanbut it gets worse with such quotes as
RadiumOne is bringing a new approach to online advertising by using social data to get the right ads to the right audience – in essence we focus on social interactions, allowing our targeting to be more relevant and on a greater scale...."What does an average day look like for you?", "What are your challenges", "What made you work in the media?", "What is the key to your job", "What is your management style?", "What online resources?", "What advertising is exciting you?", "What are your business tips?", "What are your other thoughts?"(All this alone violates WP:CORPDEPTH, and I actually only spent a few minutes until that same article finished)
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability, Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: Routine notices, brief announcements, notices, quotes....". If something as simple as WP:CORPDEPTH still can't be satisfied, there's no convincing signs. Substance is stated in not only that but every other applicable page for notability in companies. Also, WP:N actually states as is: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if" note both the emphasized "presumed" and "if", making it not a guarantee at all, and that's why WP:N states it's not a pillar policy at all. "A source in the business column section about a controversy seems" is unacceptable because it fits WP:CORPDEPTH's statement of "routine notices" and "brief announcements". We as the community judge any articles, and that's we take them to AfD. As for Bloomberg, regardless if it was approved, it's still explicitly a business profile that includes their own authored bio, that itself violates WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:N and WP:What Wikipedia is not, therefore outweighing anything a mere noticeboard announced. "and is a prominent news media worldwide" is not what their own articles have shown and noted and their articles, especially the particularly blatant ones, will note "Source is the company website" or "Information taken from the website courtesy of company", instantly violating WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:N and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Especially when CNN has knowingly used freelance journalists as it is, instantly violating our policies in having news be by trustworthy journalists, not someone who can be hired by the company. Regardless, this isn't taking away or outweighing what I explicitly quoted above. No one else cared to actually analyze the sources themselves and see the clear policy violations, so the vote has no weight. For example, the clear fact the company was involved and continued to involve itself, violates WP:NOT and also our policy WP:PAID. For example, I found multiple violations in the fist list of sources offered despite the stated "Satisfies WP:RS" when it in fact had not, because the sources were from both trade PR publications and with explicit labeling of them in the said links. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP has never been policy and by our standards for policymaking, it wouldn't easily be taken as policy, because it's simply a suggestive guideline, and even though, statements of improvements have been listed, no one else ever cared to confirm these possibilities of improvements. Also, WP:NOTPERECT, while in the editing policy, is not in fact ever mentioning company or company subjects, thus it cannot immediately be taken to be a guarantee of accepting this at all. In this case, also, WP:NOTPERFECT itself still states that articles must satisfy our policies, in which this one is not. The quote of "Fix it, don't expect others to" is not applicable and has no weigh because of the fact anyone could've fixed this to satisfy the policies, and yet they haven't and there's been weeks now, suggesting there's no possibility of improvements, especially not when the sources have now been analyzed without serious objections. To answer the comment of "But a lot of other sourcing exists" is not applicable because, as shown earlier, a careful search here easily and quickly showed nothing but published and republished PR exists, thus especially not acceptable in WP:RS at all. Even there, such sources as MuMbrella which repeatedly appears in the link, is listed as a "trade publication" making it instantly unacceptable, and continuing there shows such similar ones as "Statement: This is a republished company press release" (also violating WP:RS), and "This is a business tech blog servicing the tech business" (not satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH either as it's a business PR publication). Continuing into this search showed every variety of local news station stories, tech blogs focused to PR services, freelance contributed articles (violates WP:RS as it basically means anyone could've hired or paid for it). I continued into nearly 10 pages into it (surely any good ones would've appeared instantly), until I actually started getting some of the same links. If this is what people label as "other sourcing", it certainly isn't satisfying our policies, and policies is how we this encyclopedia judge articles. In fact, I performed two searches in the time I nominated this article, and both times found nohing but PR, so there's no substance for me to improve this at all thus deletion. Because of the still existing fact this article is outweighed by the giant 4-paragraph "products" section, it violates WP:NOT which states:
Wikipedia is not a business webhost, Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and servicesEven if we were to remove a few sentences, that would still make it a violation. As for the earlier suggestion of "ignoring rules...we can keep this article", WP:NOT is a policy that has always allowed deletion of anything unsuitable so there's no ignoring it at all. In fact, our standards have actually changed since 2014, when the article was this, and even then, the article never actually improved better from that state, because it only had a few paragraphs and sentences; simply because it wasn't nominated then quickly is not a defense at all, and we're actually obligated to a higher level now because of the recent paid advertising campaigns. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, WP:N actually states as is: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if" note both the emphasized "presumed" and "if", making it not a guarantee at all, and that's why WP:N states it's not a pillar policy at all.
On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article.
Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. |}
A topic is presumed to merit an article if It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy - This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page....see WP:What Wikipedia is notbefore finishing. The policy itself never states that merely being sourced is a guarantee factor at all. In this case, because the subject is only leaning against one happenstance controversy, there's not a lot of different better weigh for a company article, one of which we know for a fact the company started. SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)