Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarketResearch.com (2nd nomination)

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. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarketResearch.com[edit]

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

Promotion for not notable company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current article is a bombardment of press releases and listing. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete counting one reliable source and lots of primary sourced profiles, press releases, etc. Comes off as spam. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 11:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself is nothing more than business directory listings (I removed the press releases), announcements of mergers (not notable), and one link to a university site giving its users instructions on how to use the database. That said, it is possible that there is more to this, but it isn't easy to find. I can find some reports that use the company's data but they are all re-hashes of press releases that the company has produced (Top X trends in Y industry). Their data seems to be used, but I don't find anything about the company itself. LaMona (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2016 (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.