Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Datamonitor

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. JIP | Talk 09:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Datamonitor

non-notable corporation, does not meet WP:CORP Brian 06:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)btball The editor (Jenny) that created the Datamonitor article is in marketing for Datamonitor and has stated that she "wanted to use your service to provide people with information about our company". I have searched extensively on Google and followed the links provided by User:Datamonitor and have found only one article that might meet the first criterion of WP:CORP --- which calls for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself". I find nothing that supports either of the other two criteria of wp:corp nor has Jenny responded with any material supporting the wp:corp criteria. Based on my research and the extensive dialog with User:Datamonitor (Jenny) I am convinced this is simply advertising and should be deleted. I did first try the PROD approach, but User:Datamonitor deleted the PROD.

• Delete My nomination (am I supposed to do this in addition to creating the entry? If not, my apologies - I am still somewhat of a newbie here)
  • There is no need to do so and some editors find it irritating, especially since AfD is not supposed to be a vote. If you bring an article to AfD, it is assumed that you want the article deleted. If you are just finishing an incomplete nomination or are in favor of redirecting, or something besides deleting, just say so in the nomination. However, some editors do give their recommendation below their nomination. -- Kjkolb 11:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete VAIN. Datamonitor are a well known/notable UK company, but its not their own job to write this article. -- GWO
• Delete per well-researched and reasoned nom. P.S. I was told to make my own recommendation on an afd I submitted, so go figure. Tychocat 07:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as Gareth Owen suggested above, Datamonitor is a notable UK company, so Wikipedia should have an article about them. The worst of the vanity/advertising material has been removed again, leaving the bare facts. This can now be used as a basis for neutral editors to expand the article into something worthwhile. Gwernol 10:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've also added external links to the article that show Datamonitor's analyst reports are widely used by reputable press outlets. This article now, I believe, meets WP:CORP. By the way I have no connection to the company - I'd not heard of them before about a week ago. Gwernol 11:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep (changing my opinion based on the recent changes and removal of the blatant advertising. The verifiability is still a bit weak, but that can be improved. I no longer think this article needs to be deleted. We can work with what's there and improve it. Brian 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Comment - None of the external links are about Datamonitor, they all mention the firm in connection with a press announcement about someone else's earnings, e.g., the company still fails WP:CORP for lacking multiple non-trivial third-party articles about itself. Verifiability is not the issue, notability is. The question of verifiability does however lend itself to the question of original research, which the article largely still consists of. Tychocat 18:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not clear to me whether these meet the WP:CORP criteria #1 or not. The footnote to the criteria states "The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service". The product of Datamonitor is its reports, and these are articles by independent sources writing about the company's products. There is ambiguity here, but at the least its reasonable to argue that these sources count, which is why I added them. This would be a good example to discuss on the WP:CORP talk page as I think a clarification of the policy is needed. Given that there is general agreement about the notability of Datamonitor if not about the article as it stands, I believe its right to keep the article for now. Gwernol 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well there's the Superbrands article and site that was on a previous version of the article - it should probably go back. I found two other articles, Hoover's and CBRonline, but they are both paid services so I can't link them here. I find myself in the odd position of having been the one to AfD it in the first place (the first time I searched I only found articles by Datamonitor, not independent sources) but now believe that it's notable enough. I'll keep looking for sources that we can actually cite in the article to support notability, for the moment I'm ok with the article staying in its current form (excised of the previous advertising) - but that's just one editor's opinion. I'll be doing a bit of travelling for the next four days, so it will be a while before I get back to this. Personally, I'm ok with either delete or keep at this point. It's a pretty weak article and started out its life as a blatant advert. Datamonitor probably is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but more work is needed to demonstrate the "multiple non-trivial independent articles" about it... Brian 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball

• Delete - Datamonitor might be of some note, but that is not at issue. I looked into the article as it is now. It is bad. Datamonitor is only needed because we are going to quote them. Or they are going to be quoted. In essence, they are a footnote. Status is as such; they provide footnote material. Any relevant information they provide will be sold to high bidders as reports. Their public information is similar to Dow-Jones or other business listing agencies. In addition, they provide no historical information. I say delete. meatclerk 02:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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.