Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdChoices

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AdChoices (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)

Public relations piece. No WP: Reliable sources. Refs link mostly to self-serving sites. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that clicking the news link above (which gets you here) shows pretty clearly that AdChoices is a widely covered topic. Perhaps more sources should be added to the article, but as it stands now it includes a number of independent sources (leading search engine website, leading advertising information website) plus the large number of companies using the program. The page is also widely viewed; for instance, it got 3450 views in July.Vipul (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Another one where WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to have been followed. Plenty of coverage exists. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Massive amounts of information exists on the topic. It has even been extensively studied and reported on. Saying that no reliable sources exist for one of the largest advertising programs ever is ridiculous. Winner 42 Talk to me! 07:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep obviously notable. I think the nominator need not be reminded that WP:AfD is not for cleanup. Nominator, had you look before this ridiculous nomination, you would have found plenty of sources. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of reliable sources available to establish notability. This nominator has been AfDing a number of clearly notable pages recently. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:43, 12 August 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.