Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTB House

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 no consensus. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RTB House

RTB House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An advert of an advert company. No evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are industry portals not good enough secondary sources to provide reliable information on the subject? What can I do to improve? Chodznadswider (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Chodznadswider[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As written, fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides multiple independent sources (listed below the article) to back up its content. These sources (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alisoncoleman/2014/10/24/how-polands-globally-outsourced-tech-talent-became-native-entrepreneurs/, http://adexchanger.com/international/rtb-house-leverages-european-ecommerce-growth-to-expand-programmatic/) are neither trivial nor incidental. Some of those sources actually seem based on press releases, but there are at least three which are of a deeper character and provide independent author's opinion of the matter. The company website listed as a source should probably be deleted according to guidelines provided.

In which part of the above I am wrong? Or maybe there is something I missed. Chodznadswider (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Forbes link is to their blog section ([1]), which doesn't seem much more reliable than what most blog offer. Your second link is to adexchanger - the name already sounds like a PR site. Sorry, but I am not seeing any significant coverage by mainstream sources, which is required here. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online advertising is not mainstream and will probably never be. However globally adexchanger is one of the leading sources of information on this topic, though niche or even PR it may sound to people who don't deal with it (By the way "Adexchange" is actually a stock exchange of online ads, where particular ad impressions are bought and sold in real time. There is a number of competing institutions of this kind). So is the case with blogs of people who write about it, which are often the only sources on the topic. Should those more niche branches of knowledge be excluded from Wikipedia, because they never find their way to the mainstream? Why then are there any articles on online advertising in the Wikipedia? By the way - the notability guideline does not say sources should be "mainstream".Chodznadswider (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re:"Online advertising is not mainstream " - you must be kidding or ignorant or Rip van Winkle. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm trying to prove a point. It's not mainstream so most of what it's about will not be mentioned in the mass media - that's my definition of "not mainstream", depends on what you think. Of course, companies which earn on advertising do appear in the mass media, but usually for other reasons than online advertising. My point is that it's barely possible for a niche topic to get reliable "mainstream" coverage, and that what I understand was needed (as Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus mentioned). By the way if forbes.com is not mainstream then what is?Chodznadswider (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr explained what's wrong with forbes ref: the key wikipedia requirement violated in this case is the cited reference must have an independent, neutral authorship. Yes, niche topic don't have mainstream media coverage, and that's exactly why they usually don't have wikipedia coverage. Notice I wrote "usually": "mainstream" is not the only allowable kind of sources per wikipedia rules, but absence thereof is a good indicator that the subject is nonnotable. Therefore Piotrus merely stated that he tried to find something usable and failed, so he concluded nonnotability. It is your job, not his, to prove notability. If you will be convincing, he even can change his mind. Please read our policy about admissible sources; I am not going to repeat all of it here. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand it better. I'll try to provide some more sources to prove notability.Chodznadswider (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources added.Chodznadswider (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - the sources now added establish notability but the article is written in a very promotional tone and needs a rewrite to avert potential NPOV and COI issues. Nonetheless the subject appears to be sufficiently notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability established by referenced sources. ~KvnG 05:00, 22 February 2015 (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.