- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verified Market Research
[edit]- Verified Market Research (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)
Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Many of the references used are trivial mentions of the company providing research to clients. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not been able to access a single report which provides in-depth information *about* the *company* - sure, they've published research, but that doesn't assist in establishing their own notability. Which "additional sources" talk about the company and meet GNG/NCORP criteria? HighKing++ 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The mentioned company is significant and notable within its industry. It seems to meet the GNG, although the sourcing could be better. I have found coverage in a book I’ve just added in Review section. This book-source highlights the company's notability by giving a deep review and description on company. DraculaParrot (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single source mentioned (that isn't clearly PR ...) provide any in-depth information *about* the **company* and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep and Comment: Leaning toward Keep/No consensus. Despite few detailed sources, Verified Market Research's mentions in industry news and its recognition suggest it's important to keep. I would stick to this rule: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (NEXIST), as such organizations are usually covered in industry-printed materials not available in online magazines and books.
NiftyyyNofteeeee (
talk) 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just to point out that "mentions in industry news" fall a long way short of the type of sourcing we need to establish notability. Check out WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Also, I've access to a lot of different research material - can you provide any names of "industry materials" or whatever printed books/publications which might be worth checking out? HighKing++ 15:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the NEXIST rule is really wise in similar cases as the company is the biggest in the Asia Pacific region, and not all sources are available in online databases. I personally usually find more information from physical books and libraries in many of my projects and research, so now I see why nexist rule was created. 149.172.122.230 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful if those editors arguing to Keep addressed HighKing's questions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment as I mentioned before, the support for GNG or Sigcov is at least a book I added to the page and mentioned here within the discussion. That helps to establish the company as at least notable enough (as the biggest in Asia and biggest Asian focused market research company. DraculaParrot (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you examine the content against the correct guidelines (NCORP) - WP:CORPDEPTH? We know the company exists but the task here isn't to help "establish the company", it is to find sources which meet the criteria for establishing notability. For that we require in-depth analysis of the company. How many sentences/paragraphs are devoted to the company in the book? HighKing++ 21:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's no sourcing applied, presented, or found which brings this article past WP:ORGCRIT or GNG. There are a fair number of relatively inexperienced editors making assertions, all coincidentally favoring keep in a generic way, none of whom has presented a single reliable source in this discussion. Then we have a wandering IP who jumps in to endorse the use of WP:NEXIST, suggesting we really don't need those pesky sources at all. This has the smell of sock farm and UPE all over it, and while I'm not making any specific accusations, I'm also not standing by idly. BusterD (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I just crossed out my 'keep' vote. The company definitely does not meet the criteria for significance. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 17:10, 15 March 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.