Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koozai

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 delete. Noting that this is part of the Orangemoody affair, and that the sole account that has shown up to argue for "Keep" has been blocked as a sock. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koozai

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

A non-notable digital marketing agency. The sources seem like they might establish notability under WP:GNG and WP:CORP, but they really don't...

Sources 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 11 are simply passing mentions rather than the "significant coverage" required by the GNG. The first source simply notes that a man who works at the company is competing in an Ironman Triathlon competition: that's sadly representative of the quality of sourcing.

Some sources are simply rewritten press releases: 3, 6, 9, 10 and 16.

Sources 8, 18, 19, 20 and 24 are self-published on the company's site.

Sources 12, 13, 14 and 15 are "guest blogs", which means they are also basically self-published.

Source 17 shows that the company is a Google partner. That isn't in any way notable, just promotional filler.

Source 21, 22 and 23 are industry awards.

While I shall assume good faith and not say definitively whether it was created as promotional spam, a relatively new account that does some minor WikiGnoming before writing an article about a marketing agency doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in me that this isn't paid editing. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete for now as although it would appear the article has several sources including from notable sources, there's not much significant and outstanding coverage with my searches here, here and here finding nothing particularly good. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per notability criteria. Sources 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 11 are not all just passing mentions but Koozai is cited and multiple mentions in a no. of sources including Time, BBC shows enough notability for a digital marketing agency. I am not sure about the unreliability about guest blogs as such posts requires to comply with website's own policy and it is usual that experts in relevant domains are requested to do so and all those websites are notable and have their own articles on English Wikipedia. I also do not think independent sources like the Guardian, BBC or Daily Mail etc. will put press releases in their news. Source 21, 22 and 23 are industry awards and those awards indicates notability. Self-published sources are used as per WP:SELFPUB. Thank you.Dendsoli (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This really needs more discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their passing mentions. Also note that user Dendsoli has only 45 edits so take that into consideration when reading his comment. CerealKillerYum (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check my rationale posted above. They all are not passing mentions. The subject is widely covered in third party independent sources which easily passes the primary criteria, WP:ORGIND etc. One can check news sources and Google Scholar results. Besides, the company has own several awards which shows notability and I think my edit count has nothing to do with this AFD. Thanks, Dendsoli (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dendsoli, don't be offended, it is perfectly normal at AfD to note that a 'voter' is the creator of the article, and that they have a (in your case relatively,) small number of edits. I'm afraid I agree with others that this KIND of sources (and their use), does not inform much about this company and it is relatively promotional.Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. But, they have own several awards and awards indicate notability. Can I edit it to remove the promotional tone? Sorry, if I am wrong about the criteria. Regards,Dendsoli (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The better sources are passing comments which do not establish WP notability for the company itself, (though it may be known 'within the trade'). The Guardian piece is written BY someone at Koozai, rather than being about Koozai. The tone is relatively promotional, which does not help (Why say it was featured in XYZ, rather than saying what was said about it by XYZ?). This could be a case of TOOSOON, but for now that means 'delete'.Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect I disagree with your rationale. The company is being referred in multiple independent reliable sources like BBC, Daily Mail, Time, Daily Telegraph etc. Their views/comments have been published in independent reliable sources. If Koozai is not a notable company in SEO field then why would the news sources refer them or even quote their comments? Google news sources returning many independent sources about Koozai[1] which can be added in the article. The company has own several awards which also indicates notability. If the article's tone is promotional then I can tone down the promotional wordings. Can you please, help in this? Regards, Dendsoli (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please, note that their survey on "small-to-medium-sized enterprises" is noteworthy and has received wide coverages by independent reliable sources like The BBC, Telegraph, The Guardian etc. Also, this Guardian news piece is not written by anyone from Koozai. Thanks. Dendsoli (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also edited to make the article more neutral. Any suggestion or help would be appreciated. Dendsoli (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was accidentally commented out of the log page for 2 August due to an edit conflict. Relisted for the current day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 20:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Turns out the user who created this article is one of the accounts that got caught in the giant paid editing cleanup last night. I pointed out in my nomination statement that the user's behaviour doesn't exactly inspire confidence in me that it wasn't paid editing, and it now looks like my hunches have been confirmed. Can we call this what it is—paid advertorial spam—and finally get rid of it? —Tom Morris (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first reference is about a person's sporting achievement, with a very brief mention that the person works for Koozai. Other refs that I checked were also by-the-way mentions—none of them provide evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 1 September 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.