Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Book Market Research

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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Book Market Research[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted (but I can't tell if it was speedied, so if this is, that's fine), and still fails GNG and CORP. This article is solely based upon sources that do not establish notability of the company. The surveys are limited-audience in the first place (healthcare tech). The information about the company itself comes from the company itself. Citation of surveys (its "product") says nothing about the company itself, nor does it confer notability on the company. The surveys cited as "private polls for US News and World Report" are not; they are surveys cited by US News in articles, in each case being one paragraph and not a major focus of the article. In neither case does US News indicate it commissioned the surveys, which it would be *required* to disclose to comply with journalistic ethics. Two of the three articles cited for "EHR vendor replacement" are written by the same author (conveniently left off the citations), and the other one might be as well, except the link is dead. The only outside sources that talk about Black Book refer to its surveys in news articles in general, not the company. Companies who refer to their surveys do so because those companies are highly ranked in those surveys - therefore, those sources are not independent or third-party. MSJapan (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, preferably speedy under WP:CSD#G11 (blatant promotion) which is the grounds on which I deleted it. Note that it was re-created by the same person who created the original. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 19 August 2015 (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.