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. Page can be draftified by request. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panelbase[edit]

Panelbase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable business. Sources cited are obits of the founder, and while they might contribute towards his notability, they don't towards the company's. BEFORE search finds plenty of mentions of the Panelbase name, by virtue of what they do (ie. their survey results being reported), but nothing about the company itself. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How can the company not be notable when the produce of the company is covered extensively across basically every article about a UK national or local election? Their produce is covered extensively in UK newspapers and mentioned frequently on UK broadcast news, the fact that an article didn't already exist was shocking to me. The company has significant influence on the politics of the UK but there shouldn't be an article on who owns the company or the methods the company uses to produce their surveys?

Does the article need more work? Absolutely.

Are the majority of the sources about the founder rather than the organisation he founded? Absolutely.

Do I intend to expand the article when I have the time to find more and better sources? Absolutely. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ORGSIG, no organisation is inherently notable. And even if this company's services were notable (which hasn't been shown), notability is not inherited. If you're aware of a policy or guideline that trumps these points, please cite it. Thank you,-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even accept that their work is notable, even though we link to their work on pretty much every recent article about UK or Irish election polling? That's not enough to even hint they might be notable in your eyes?

* Opinion polling for the 2020 Irish general election

* Opinion polling for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum

* Opinion polling for the next Scottish Parliament election

* Opinion polling for the 2021 Scottish Parliament election

* Opinion polling for the 2016 Scottish Parliament election

* Opinion polling for the 2011 Scottish Parliament election

* Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

* Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election

* Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election

* Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election

This isn't even an exhaustive list it's just the first ten I grabbed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I make no comment on the notability of the company's products/services; that isn't what is being tested here, but rather the notability of the company. Once more: notability is not inherited, and must be shown in the usual manner (GNG etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nom. Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sock puppet should be discounted. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the !vote directly above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify to give more time to improve. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" apply here - the company's data may be widely used, but is the company itself inherently notable? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• commentThe are bags of survey companies; all their product contributes to the general news mill. If special weight was given to the results given by this company that would be an anrgument for notability, but this is not the case.TheLongTone (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability requires the company to be discussed in depth in reliable sources. A company's product being widely used does not establish notability. That might sound strange, but that's the way it works on Wikipedia. It most especially does not establish notability by being used on Wikipedia because Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source. Moving to draft is only beneficial if substantial sources exist, and at the moment there is no evidence of that. SpinningSpark 10:07, 17 July 2022 (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.