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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing Share

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

NN, promotional article. Deleted once in 2006 and recreated in 2010, at time of recreation, several links were added but all have been removed. Most sources are not independent or just passing mentions. Insufficient in-depth coverage in RS. Does not pass WP:NCORP MB 15:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO based on passing mentions and business journal promotional write-ups, including a clear effort to establish company's preferred neologism for the common term "market research". Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, then or now. Deleted before, delete again. Bakazaka (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for relister @Sheldybett: Why did you relist this AfD for a 2nd time, when there are multiple guideline/policy-based !votes to delete, including the nomination, and no opposition to deletion after two weeks at AfD? Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't be concerned with the relisting. At this point, the AfD could be closed despite the relisting; however, time is not a precious metric in this case. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:24, 29 March 2019 (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.