Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UAE Retail Benchmarking Study 2009

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAE Retail Benchmarking Study 2009[edit]

This appears to be less an article about the organization that conducted a survey and more of a report on the results of a survey (which is news reporting, not encyclopedic content, and thus fails WP:NOTNEWS.) Transwiki to Wikinews if appropriate, but delete here. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... The author of the article has indicated on the article talk that the article should be moved to 'Retail Benchmarking' and that it will be expanded to illustrate the concept more than the actual study that currently makes up the majority of the article. This is a really good idea, and I'd do the move myself it it wasn't currently in AFD. The artile is already more general than it was originally. But, I also note that the article's creator is the same person who created the article on the company which authored the study, so my advertizing/corporate interest radar is up and turning, but for now I can AGF. Livitup (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Livitup, basically. Again though, just because an article needs work is no reason in and of itself to delete it. Ohms law (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about one survey, which itself has no evidence of notability. The sources are not about the survey; rather they report (some) of the results of the survey. In this current form, the article is reporting news, which is not what we do as an encyclopedia. ÷seresin 06:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inappropriate to report the report's results; is essentially plagaiarism. Abductive (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until it's expanded as above. - Richfife (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2009 (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.