Talk:Responsible Research

I want to address concerns that the subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia 'notability' requirements:

A)     The article provides sources that address all content.

Sources include signficant international organisations (United Nations PRI), respected NGOs (AsiaIRP), government speeches (Prime Minister of Malaysia), prominent global media publications (Financial Times), and private companies without directly overlapping business interests (Asian Sustainability Ranking).

B) This article is not self-promotion or indiscriminate publicity.

It is an attempt to explain the research firm's mission - to analyse ESG in Asia - in the context of the growing sustainable investment and independent research industry.

There are only a few players in the global investment reseach industry that are conducting analysis entirely independently from listed corporate clients. The 'notability' of the article subject's role in providing independent ESG research for Asian markets is verifiable based on the company's collaboration as an ESG research provider for the United Nations PRI engagement programs and through coverage by global media sources (which are also cited in artcle).

Kindly refer to the significant revisions that I made to omit all 'promotional' language from the initial draft, and kindly reconsider the decision to delete the article.

Allison.prevatt (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Allison.prevatt


 * It's hard to find any reliable sources amongst the references there now, per WP:RELIABLE, and there are a number of references to the company's website, which would not be considered acceptable. Neither the Financial Times nor Asian Investor articles, either of which may be helpful, can be read. There is not a credible claim offered as to why this is notable. And there's reason to believe, as in the article's previously deleted forms, that you are affiliated with the subject, a conflict of interest. And yes, the article continues to read like a press release. 99.136.253.101 (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Challenged CSD A7
I have challenged the CSD A7, I think the references assert a sufficient claim of importance to survive the criteria. However without further references, this article is unlikely to survive an Articles for Deletion discussion, which I anticipate may begin soon. Please add references to coverage of the company itself (not just passing references to it) in independent reliable sources. Also please review the notability guidelines for organizations WP:ORG. Monty 845  00:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)