Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMarketer

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 keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EMarketer[edit]

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

Non notable market research firm. Every reference is either self-published or a routine notice based on press releases,. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are quite a few citations of their various market studies in Google Books and Google Scholar, so I'm inclined to think they might be notable. We should probably treat them as a we do press agencies (or academics) in this respect, i.e. if they are cited enough they are notable. How much is enough though? They seem to have thousands of citations, so I would say it's a keep. (Look for example how many times they've been cited in WSJ just in the last month [1]. In total, there are something like 55 pages (1000+ results) of ghits for eMarketer on WSJ's site alone.) Sure it would be nice to dig some WP:GNG coverage about the company itself, but going through thousands of pages is a lot of work... We might as well delete Forrester Research for it has a comparable number of hits in WSJ last month [2]. (Gartner has two or three times that number). And there are some web pages out there comparing eMarketer to Forrester [3][4] and some books do that as well [5] [6], so this isn't outlandish... This [7] for example works towards satisfying GNG. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Easy keep. Agree with the above. Plenty of citations from reputable sources. They are clearly notable by how much their content is cited in other publications. E.g. [8]. However, some references should clearly not be there - Yahoo listing and Linkedin profile! Some are clearly also based on press or have a large spin from the company or owners. However, for a media-savy company perhaps that should be expected to some degree. But easy keep. GoldenClockCar (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2014 (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.