Network Advertising Initiative : Deleted at 2008 AfD as non-notable.  Boleyn ( talk ) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  There's plenty of independent coverage; the current citations are misleading.  A glance at the article's talkpage would explain that.  There are nearly three dozen mentions from 1999 to present in the New York Times alone [37] .  Here's a critique of the organization already used as a citation in the wiki article: [38] .  Just because the article needs help doesn't mean it should be deleted.  It was only deleted in 2008 because it was unreferenced.  This organization is mentioned in a sizeable number of other wiki articles, including several court cases.  In the age of targeted online advertising, the need for this wiki article seems more and more important.  Persingo ( talk ) 08:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The organization is definitely notable: it is an important part of the history of advertising industry self-regulation in the US, and the debates and criticisms around that.  NAI is widely covered and referred to in mainstream press and academic literature, not just trade press and writing from privacy organizations.  The article itself doesn't use as many of those secondary sources as it should; I can take some of the blame for that as I wrote much of this article's text in 2010 as a relatively new editor who had an academic's tendency to rely on primary sources.  But the article should be made more current and cite those secondary sources, not be deleted.  Npdoty ( talk ) 03:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Could those editors advocating Keep bring some more sources into the discussion or add them to the article to address the nominator's concerns?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is it typically required that editors have to go through the longer steps of making significant edits to an article just to avoid deletion of the entire article through this process?  After a very brief search, I would likely add these two New York Times articles on the origination of NAI, and perhaps this 2011 New York Times blog post that reported just on a change of leadership of the organization, to the History subsection of the article.  https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business/internet-companies-set-policies-to-help-protect-consumer-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/04/technology/online-privacy-remains-a-consumer-question-after-doubleclick.html https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/online-advertising-group-hires-new-chief/ Npdoty ( talk ) 17:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There appears to be sufficient sources available here and more online that meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 13:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The available sources seem to establish enough notability.  popo dameron ⁠ talk 18:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep' Sufficient sources have been provided and available in Google search.  Maxcreator ( talk ) 00:20, 27 February 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep