Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetrixLab

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MetrixLab

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The only references listed in the article are directory sites and press releases, which fail WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 13:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shoy, I have since been back over the article and have removed any press releases, for example articles from PR News Wire. I am not too sure what is meant by directories? Theodone (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a Bloomberg.com profile, for instance, listed as a source is not impressive. All the ResearchLive sources are press releases also. I would suggest reading WP:RS for descriptions of what reliable sources look like so. shoy (reactions) 13:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The listed awards look routine in the sector (top 50s for growth, innovation, etc.) and most of the references are passing coverage of routine announcements involving the firm. One possible exception is the bylined GreenBook Blog piece which discussed the implications of the announcement of this firm's takeover by another (which has no article here, or a redirect would be an option) and concludes that together they are a contender with "the potential to go toe-to-toe not only with the Big 4 full service firms" in their sector. Although speculative, this could go some way towards WP:CORPDEPTH but not I think far enough. AllyD (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AllyD, I have now updated my references so that they provide more value from sites which would not be considered Press Release sites. Please also see that I have removed absolutely any content which could be considered promotional in tone, if you find another example please let me know. I have also included an additional Key Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodone (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite to Macromill or Macromill Group. The Japanese company is a sizable and notable organization in the research market. It operates through some 9 brands for which we do not need individual articles. gidonb (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Macromill Article. Perfect Gidonb, I am going to prepare an article for the macromill group. i will update this deletion talk page once it is up.Theodone (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great then better call it Macromill Group. Short names generally have the preference but here Macromill is only one of the brands. If and when the group concentrates all or most activity under the Macromill nomer in the future, then Macromill would be the preferred name. gidonb (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Article in Addition to a Potential Macromill Group Article . I would like to make an argument to keep the MetrixLab article in addition to a potential Macromill Group article in the future. My main reasons for this argument are notability. MetrixLab are a multi-national brand operating in 28 offices worldwide. As noted in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), a company or organisation is considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. This is a guideline which MetrixLab fully conform to, having cited references from independent sources such as Green Book Blog, Endeit, Emerce, Computable, and Destination CRM, if there are specific issues with my individual references then please let me know.

Furthermore, it had been suggested I prepare a Macromill Group article which this MetrixLab article could then be merged with. Having started to prepare a Macromill Group Article, it has become more and more clear how much of an important role MetrixLab play within the Macromill Group of Companies. For example, many of the brands within the Macromill Group were either acquired by or merged with Metrixlab either prior to becoming a Macromill group company or in order to become a Macromill Group Company. The role MetrixLab play within the larger Macromill brand is vital.

The final point I would like to make is that I have now updated quite a few of my references to make sure they are as independent and as reliable as possible, staying away from any press release or directory sites, as well as using references from the company’s website as little as possible. I believe I only include the one reference to the MetrixLab.com site now which lists all of their office locations. Please let me know if you find any references which would be deemed unsuitable. Theodone (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Article in Addition to a Macromill Group Article Company is significant enough to merit it's own article from what I can see from google searches of news. I don't read/write Dutch so it is hard to evaluate quality of the sources currently supporting the article. User:Theodone I suggest you add more sources from reputable international/national media in English (from a quick google search I can see there are many references about the company that could be used). As this article is on English Wikipedia, and editors commenting likely don't read/write Dutch, that will help to establish notability and hence it's rightful place on wikipedia. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly "corporate spam". With content such as this (right in the lead):

"... agency focussed (sic) on helping businesses with product innovation, brand engagement and customer value. Working with large organisations and charities, MetrixLab maximise digital, mobile, social and big data to deliver insights at scale"

....this article is not in compliance with WP:NOT. The language is poetic: "deliver insights at scale"; "customer value"; "all over the world" (and that's just from the lead). The rest of the article is not much better, with external links in body & list of non-notable awards (hallmark of WP:PROMO articles). The subject shows no indications of notability or significance, with sources being very unconvincing. The article exists solely to promote the business, rather than provide encyclopedic content.

Accepting such advertorial articles on insignificant subjects is not in the best interest of the project. Furthermore, volunteer editors' time would be wasted on trying to maintain neutrality of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant advertising. The intro reads like a product brochure. The body is filled with puffery. Notability is unconvincing. WP:TNT - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Updated References & Removing “Poetic Language") -- Please see that I have now updated my references so that they are all in English. I most definitely agree that the company is significant enough to merit its own article, I think a Macromill Group Article would also be of benefit. This article provides encyclopaedic coverage of the company, consolidating multiple online resources in to one article.

I have gone back over the wording within the lead paragraph and have removed anything which I would consider “Poetic”, however, I am not entirely sure what is meant by this so let me know if I have missed anything. With Regards to the awards section – although the listed awards may not be of significance in a general sense, they are of significance within the industry. I have reduced the amount of awards so I only feature the most significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodone (talk • contribs) 10:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The second sentence is "Providing businesses with analytics solutions and marketing research services, MetrixLab maximise digital, mobile, social and big data in order to deliver actionable insight." If you think this is acceptable and non-promotional, this suggests you literally don't understand what is and isn't promotional language or an encyclopedic writing style - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi David, It was more the term “Poetic” which had me stumped. Please see that I have now updated this sentence. Thanks.Theodone (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For goodness sake. There is not one good source available. Every single source is unreliable or of questionable independence. I do not see secondary coverage of the awards either. At no point does this satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Lemongirl942, are you able to explain further why every single source is unreliable? Of course, I want to use the most valuable/reliable references possible so it would be good to hear what makes the current references so unreliable. Where possible I will try to find additional/replacement references. Theodone (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed article about the company in major newspapers would help. I don't see that here though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:46, 7 October 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.