Talk:Euromonitor International

WP:SYNTHESIS & use of New York Times citations
Thanks for giving me a chance. Using the WP:SYNTHESIS United Nations example, can we start with the first pair of RED_X statements at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material
 * The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
 * The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, and since its creation there have been only 160 wars throughout the world.

Using the first example from WP::What SYNTH is not, I'd try for:
 * Although the United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, many of the 160 wars since its creation have been exclusively between member nations.

I'm not saying that the above variant is OK, but rather asking you to indicate which NYTimes citations, none of which were retained by your ediing, can be used. Since we're both volunteering our time, it might be overstepping bounds to ask for you to show how they may be combined, but at least I'd have a starting point for using one of them. Two might be synthesis, but surely one of them should be OK to use. Pi314m (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH wasn't the only issue that led to the edits being reverted; also WP:OR and WP:RS. For instance, if a source says that the company's reports are "widely cited by news agencies", then we could include that detail; however, if there was no such source and you were to include this text simply based on your own observation that the company is mentioned in a few different new sources, then that would be WP:OR. Sources included should be ones that discuss the company, not ones that include mere mention of the company's name, and the content included in this article should be based on specific details about the company that the sources discuss, not a WP editor's own original observations or summaries. You can always propose text here for further comment/review. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of text that was included in the article that constitutes WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.


 * “The company's reports [Source: NYT] and industry research [Source: BBC] is (sic) cited by worldwide news media.”


 * Note that neither of the 2 sources said that the company’s reports and industry research are “cited by worldwide new media”; that is simply an observation on your part and hence it is WP:OR as well as WP:SYNTH (i.e., cobbling together sources to imply that they said something that they did in fact not say). Going a step further and looking in detail at one the sources (BBC) as an example, these are in fact the only details about the company that were reported:


 * “The sheer scale of it is mind-boggling but perhaps not surprising when you consider that, according to market research company Euromonitor International, the global market for confectionery was worth $193.5bn (£148bn; €169.4bn) last year….The readiness to splash out is symptomatic of wider consumer sentiment, according to Ivan Koric, senior food and drink analyst at Euromonitor International.”


 * Those details could potentially support 2 statements in our article: (1) EMI is a market research company; (2) Ivan Koric is a senior food and drink analyst at EMI (the latter detail being too trivial for inclusion). Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it was defeathered of most of its content, and now looks like a stripped-down scrawny hatchling. I'm restoring what was my last edit, and lets see if it looks less like a sitting duck for speedy deletion) --Pi314m (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (it has content indicating that Euromonitor's research is used by NYTimes and The Economist) --Pi314m (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (It's not likely that on my own, without access to the prior version, that I made what's now called "the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted" - so I'd like the entire page to be replaced by a DRAFTified text containing what was deleted before I got involved with this page) --Pi314m (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

2016
As noted above, the 2016 (deleted article) was only one sentence "Euromonitor International Ltd is a privately owned, London-based market research firm, providing market research, business intelligence reports, and data to industry.", with one reference. Pi314m (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

REVIEW OF SOURCES: 42 "citations"
Six of the first seven citations are PEWresearch, BBC, NYTimes, NYTimes, The Economist, NYTimes. It also, however, has "weaker" citations (such as #3, Cruncbase).

Based on a suggestion left on my Talk page (Thanks), I've compiled this:
 * Of 42 REFs listed :


 * ONCE: Euromonitor's own BLog
 * WEAK (e.g. Tomato News) (10 times)
 * QueensAwardMagazine!!! Yichus!!! (notability: The Queen knows them, and Wiki's article says the Queen knows!)

supportive (11):
 * 8 strong citation sources: BBC (3x), NYTimes (5 times)
 * once each: The Economist, Newsweek, PEWresearch

as for the rest:
 * Wiki-recommended: Google Scholar (3x)
 * has Wiki-article's magazine/website, e.g. Entrepreneur (magazine) (4 times)
 * a university library's review: (5 times)


 * not strong, but not that weak, (once each) BusinessInsider.com, Crunchbase, EU (European Union/a government; they're a Euromonitor customer)
 * Newspapers.com (Kingsport News)


 * Not a ref/a note: Twice.
 * Not-a-ref: List of cities by international visitors USES Euromonitor

For a stub, 11 BBC/NYTimes level citations does not a Good Article make, but AfD? As the hatnote says, "This article needs additional citations..." Pi314m Pi314m (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article relies overmuch on citations that don't include secondary coverage, but simply use Euromonitor's data. The coverage in BBC, NYTimes, and the Economist all appears to be of this variety. While this can be an indicator that additional reliable coverage exists, it does not in itself establish notability. The extensive use by others, including in peer reviewed publications, makes me think that an exception can potentially be made, similar to how academic journals generally get articles despite not cleanly meeting notability guidelines. Nonetheless, we need to be careful not to engage in original research when writing an article based on such sparse sourcing. signed,Rosguill talk 22:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

As of 2020-09-22, 16 of 20 are not PRIMARY
After several trims of trivia (e.g. that the main founder is Robert N. Senior, and the CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi [in a related industry] is Robert Senior/no reported middle name or initial), what's left are several citations from NYTimes, BBC, The Economist; there are also a few weaker ones. Pi314m (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The citations to NYTimes, BBC, and the Economist all appear to be primary with respect to Euromonitor. They briefly mention Euromonitor's reporting in the context of other topics or quote its analysts, but do not provide any independent analysis about Euromonitor. This lack of independent analysis makes the coverage primary in nature. signed,Rosguill talk 18:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)