Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Insight


 * 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. v/r - TP 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Corporate Insight

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The few 3rd party independent references of this  promotional article are merely to articles where someone from the firm has been quoted, which does not amount to notability.  DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi DGG,

If I did this wrong I apologize. I see these guys quoted alot so I made them an article. Rather than deleting this can I try again with a different approach?

So two questions:

First, what would you have me do to make it less promotional? Basically, what strikes you as bias. Would adding a criticism section (if I could find that material) be helpful?

Second, what would make for better sources? I figured being frequently quoted would count as notable so that's why I used that for most of the sources. What kind of sources are you looking for?

Please advise. And sorry I'm new!

Thanks!

Ps - If this isn't the proper way to respond to your comment I also apologize for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino9813 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the sources point I skimmed the sources policy and I'm curious to hear your take on this. Given what I've seen on Wikipedia that counts as "sources" there seems to be a pretty big contrast between policy and actual practice.

In your opinion, DGG, as someone who is experienced with Wikipedia, would constitute better credible sources? I'd rather learn from you or anyone else what the actual policy is.

I thought an article by Bloomberg, CNBC, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Newsweek, TIME, and USA Today would be credible 3rd party sources! Would you like to see more news articles? Or maybe different ones by equally well known sources that are more relevant? More purely financial reporting outlets, where I first started seeing them?

I think I've seen the President guy Mike on TV as well would that be a better source? I'll see if I can find that.

Thanks!

thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino9813 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Okay so here's my last comment on this. I added more news sources including a TV appearance I found. Is that any better?

I also tried to think about how to re-write this article to address its perception as promotional. And I admit I'm not sure.

Basically I made this article because while I clearly don't know much about how to properly use a Wikipedia discussion page I do know alot about finance. And I've noticed that most of the large financial institutions in the United States and therefore in turn the media are going to these guys for questions on how the hot trends, like online, like mobile, like social media are changing the financial industry.

But the problem is that last sentence sounds incredibly bias! I guessed that I couldn't put something like that in an article. So I tried to make a company page that was more of a straightforward description of what they do. I certainly think an organization who is seen as the source (by both the media and the institutions themselves) of how the new trends of the era are shaping an industry as large and important as the U.S. financial industry counts as notable!

Ps - as you could probably already tell, I'm resisting having my first attempt at a page end in a failure!

Thanks!

--Marino9813 (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. The article seems to be another of those articles inserted by a publicist.  It begins, not by describing the business except in the most general terms, but with what's essentially argument that the business is notable. The coverage turns out to be a peck of offhand mentions in publications that aren't about this business and do not speak of it in any detail.  The business itself is another consulting firm apparently promoting mobile phone technology to banks and other financial firms. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Hi Ihocoyc,

I would counter that if you look at any consulting company page on Wikipedia (McKinsey & Company, Oliver Wyman, etc) the article starts with a paragraph stating that the company is a consulting firm and then a second paragraph of consulting firm X is prominent for XYZ reason. I imitated them! The only difference is that the larger ones tend to list out their sizes, how many offices they have, where they are, etc.

Again this goes back to why I'm confused by policy vs. practice. I'm happy to work on this page! You mentioned that this page should start with more general terms. I tried tweaking it a little. Is that any better? What would you envision a be better "general terms" for a consulting company page to be... even thought it's pretty much the same as others...

I would also argue that you're being a very selective with the sources. I strongly disagree with the statement that "The coverage turns out to be a peck of offhand mentions in publications that and do not speak of it in any detail." Of the 24 sources I bothered to include I admit that some of them only feature quotes. But part of that is the nature of the "business" that you misidentified. There doesn't seem to be any direct competitors for this kind of niche consulting and research, hence the company is quoted so much. Most of these sources, however, are all about Corporate Insight! The first source is a Wall Street Journal 1-on-1 interview with the President. Others are a CNBC article about one the companies reports, a Journal article on a report, A financial times article about a report, a Newsweek article about a report, NYT times on a report, a MarketWatch article on a report, etc. If you honestly read through these 24 sources and came to that conclusion I would be both surprised of your dedication to Wikipedia and surprised you came to that conclusion. Additionally, If you're familiar with quality journalism that "notable" publications tend to use most articles rely on multiple sources for quotes and never rely on a single source. Moreover, the company doesn't "promote" or sell technology as much as it is paid for for it's expertise as the lone player in this industry.

And I guess there's no way to prove I'm not a publicist other than if was I'd be a pretty bad one? I am bad accepting defeat though...

Again, I'm not just trying to push back but looking for recommendations for how to improve. DGG gave the impression that it's not notable enough, Ihocoyc that it seems too concerned with why it should be notable and thus is promotional. Please advise for what kind of changes you would like me to make!

Thanks!

--Marino9813 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

--- Ihocoyc:

I'm writing this as the Webmaster at Corporate Insight. As it has been stated before, we are a small company based in New York. If the old saying was "you're not legitimate unless you have a website," I believe the new saying is "you're not legitimate unless I can find you on Wikipedia." All of the major financial firms that we cover have a Wikipedia page, and we would like to join them in adding our page into the Wiki-world. When researching our company, potential clients, employees, and investors will be looking for more information that what is found on our website alone; the source most people turn to first is Wikipedia. I can promises you this is not a page put together by a publicist; it is a page for informational and research purposes. If more or less information needs to be included, please state what should be included, and I shall add it.

To your criticisms: It begins, not by describing the business except in the most general terms, but with what's essentially argument that the business is notable. - This has been updated to include more information on what Corporate Insight does, and what it offers the public as well as its subscribers.

The coverage turns out to be a peck of offhand mentions in publications that aren't about this business and do not speak of it in any detail. - Coverage about the business itself exists, but as a research firm, we are often cited in scholarly web-based publications. Articles aren't often written about those that write the news, but those that write the news are often cited. This is our role in the financial industry.

The business itself is another consulting firm apparently promoting mobile phone technology to banks and other financial firms. - Our firm is not promoting anything, we are providing research to our subscribers as well as the public through our newsletters and blog postings. We aren't in the marketing field, and have no bias towards any of the companies we cover; we provide a third party look at the firms we cover and provide our opinion on their offerings.

If you have further criticisms, I would be happy to address them and update the page accordingly to promote its acceptance.

-- dgcinsight —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC).

--

Hi Dgcinsight,

Is that page better? I feel like the current intro paragraphs would fall more under what Ihocoyc and DGG were talking about with something that strays too close too promotional material.

The original two intro paragraphs I made before you revised it.

Corporate Insight is a New York-based financial services research and consulting firm. In general terms the company advises clients on trends that continue to shape the financial industry such as online banking and investing, mobile apps, social media, etc.

Corporate Insight’s studies and reports are frequently referenced in articles by financial reporting agencies such as Bloomberg, CNBC, Forbes, and The Wall Street Journal.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Since the company began doing projects and consulting work related to mobile and social media trends it has garnered attention from more mainstream publications such as the New York Times, Newsweek, TIME, and USA Today.[10][11][12][13][14]

---

Thoughts? What are other peoples recommendations?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino9813 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (to Marino9813): Not sure if DGG is around, but to answer your questions - Wikipedia demands a Neutral Point of View, i.e. it's written as an encyclopedist describing the company, person, place, etc in a calm way ("The company is...", not "We are proud to announce...", for instance). And similarly, good sources have to be independent of both the company and Wikipedia, and reliable - NYTimes not Twitter, for instance. Hope that helps - I suspect you can easily find good solid materials. As the article stands, I would recommend Delete as the existing sources are either not independent or not reliable (or both). Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

--

Hi Chriswick, Dgcinsight, and everyone else --

@Dgcinsight -- Don't think those new intro paragraphs are any better since they definitely sound more promotional. I replaced it with the old one, however if you feel strongly about that you can change it back.

I've been kind of all over the map here with my questions spread out over several different posts so let me summarize my confusion better and the questions I would like answers before you take this page down.


 * First, I can't help but get the feeling that many of you haven't bothered looking at most of the sources or are being very selective with the sources. Everyone raised this issue. Of the 24 sources I bothered to include I admit that some of them only feature quotes and a few are from the company website. But that is inevitable! Quality journalism that "notable" publications write rely on multiple sources for quotes and never rely on a single source! More importantly, most of these sources are all about Corporate Insight! The first source is a Wall Street Journal 1-on-1 interview with the President. The others are a CNBC article about one of the companies reports, a Wall St. Journal article on a company report, a Financial Times article about a report, a Newsweek article about a report, NYT times on a report, a MarketWatch article on a report, a businesswire article on a report, etc. etc. If you honestly read through these 24 sources and came to that conclusion I would be both surprised of your dedication to Wikipedia and confused how you came to that conclusion.


 * Second, it seems like you’re holding this page to a pretty unfair standard (picking on it -- whatever you want to say) because it is less well known among certain circles than an international consulting firm like Bain. To quote Smerdis of Tlön’s earlier accusation: "It begins, not by describing the business except in the most general terms, but with what's essentially argument that the business is notable." PLEASE LOOK AT ANY OTHER CONSULTING COMPANIES PAGE AND SEE THAT IT FOLLOWS THE SAME FORMAT THAT I DELIBERATELY IMITATED!! The article starts with a paragraph stating that the company is a consulting firm and then a second paragraph that is something along the lines of consulting firm X is prominent for XYZ reason. Look at any other consulting page, like  Bain & Company, Booz & Company Oliver Wyman, McKinsey & Company, and while they may have some more info about the number and locations of offices can you honestly tell me that it's at all different??


 * Third, I have asked this before and I will ask this again. Which specific language is considered too bias or promotional? If you identify certain sentences or phrases I will re-write them! Again going back to comparing it to the standard that you seem to hold the larger companies too it doesn’t really seem that different! For example, the second sentence of Bain & Company’s page is “Bain is considered one of the most prestigious consulting firms in the world.” Or this from the first paragraph of Booz & Company’s page, without any source: “Booz and Company is among the top recruiters of graduates of the top-ranked business schools in the world, in addition to hiring first-rate people with advanced degrees in science, medicine, engineering and law." How is that any less promotional in tone??? I could probably find better examples with more time but again this seems pretty unfair.  Even though I know none of you personally had anything to do with that, you do seem very hypocritical when chiding me for not writing it in a more objective tone.

Therefore, I resolve that until someone can specifically address.....


 * Why the standards that applies to the similar (albeit larger) consulting company pages does not apply to this one. Quite simply, that just doesn't seem fair.
 * Why a long list of sources, all of which are from major publications and many of which are exclusively about the company report or opinions are not "independent," reliable," or “notable.”
 * What specific language is too biased or promotional in tone. I guess I didn't do a good enough job of that but I would be happy to re-word or re-work and sentences you have issue with!

..... Then this page should not be deleted!!!

~Marino9813 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino9813 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete The above WOTs (Walls of Text, or perhaps Wastes of Time) are exactly what WP:COI is meant to prevent. Mr. Corporate Insight webmaster, please disengage from this discussion and from further editing of the article. If your firm is indeed notable under Wikipedia standards, others will make that argument, and others will write the article. You should not have anything to do it with. EEng (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC) ---

Hi everyone,

Okay now is the time when I start ranting and give you another WOT. Someone sent me a message to my user page but I figured it was better to respond to this. At this point I don’t care anymore about this generically named company that sounds like a front for the mob. I care because everyone is pissing me off with this hypocrisy.

I made this page because I follow the financial world as well as the “tech” world in the most generic sense closely. I’ve noticed these guys because they’re always quoted on stories that relate to the financial world’s interaction with, again, in a generic sense, “tech” devolpments. This is why they are important – they are looked to as the authority on these issues and are treated as such by the media (and presumably their clients). But when I searched them I found that there’s a bunch of cluttered results and when you look at their company page they have the typical corporate BS that is meaningless. The same information that I don’t really care about that the company’s webmaster guy copy/pasted for the introduction. And I thought to myself, hm, these guys should really have a Wikipedia page for who they are. Then I joined Wikipedia, attempted my first page, and now I am… here.

I tried to just make a straightforward description similar to comparable pages but you guys didn’t like it. I am happy to reword. What stands out? Is “notable publications” section unnecessary? It makes sense that you’re understandable suspicious of anyone and there is no real way for me to prove that but I DON’T WORK AT THIS COMPANY that dginsight guy does.

But I do find it ridiculous that everyone keeps saying this company doesn’t count as noteable. Maybe you’ve heard of the financial industry? It’s kind of important. Maybe you haven’t heard of these things everyone keeps talking about like online, mobile, apps, social media… the point is you are smoking crack rocks if you don’t think that this counts as notable. Again, going back to the blatant hypocrisy point let’s look a few pages that Wikipedia counts as notable that I managed to find pretty quickly: cat organ, Foam take-out container, mammary intercourse -- that one’s to prove a point (with shock value) & that I’m not a conflict of interest employee at work right now since that one is definitely not safe for work -- Stockwell Stakepark, Vince Hudd... point is based on your peers who the hell are you guys to judge that this doesn’t count as notable??? Furthermore, I just skimmed the “General notability guideline” on the Notability page… what are you guys talking about? The sources absolutely comply with it!

Please refer to my previous comment for a response to criticisms that is less pissed off and more based on facts.

I ask that you take a step back and think about how ridiculous you all sound to a new user.

If you decide to delete this page I’m giving up on Wikipedia before I even begin.

Rabble Rabble Rabble This is ‘Murica, Justice and Freedom. I rest my case.

PS - couldn't get the Stockwell Stakepark like to work so here is the exact address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockwell_Skatepark

--Marino9813 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ps - I realize that most of you have obviously already made up your mind, but for anyone who is undecided on whether or not this company is notable I invite you to take a look at my user page discussion (I would link it here if I knew how) where a user named Cullen asked me to try convince him why this company is notable.

--Marino9813 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!


 * Delete This company fails the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage (addressing the subject directly in detail) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have reached out and welcomed Marino9813 on the new editor's talk page in an attempt to obtain such sources.  The article now has 24 sources, and I've now read every one.  Most of them are passing mentions of the general form, "John Smith of Corporate Insight said that a report they've published concluded etc. etc. etc." Sources 6, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are press releases, and are therefore not independent.  Sources 15 and 19 are from the company's own website and are therefore not independent.  I will be happy to change my recommendation if at least two independent, reliable  sources addressing the company in detail are provided that show that this company meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  20:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Marino9813 points to Cat organ, Foam take-out container and Mammary intercourse as examples of "blatant hypocrisy" here.  The problem with that line of argument is that all three of those topics have been discussed in detail in independent, reliable sources, and therefore meet the general notability guideline.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  22:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

Many thanks to @Cullen for spelling out for me what I would need to improve. I really appreciate that since everyone else has made me frustrated as I'm trying to figure how this works and what I'm doing wrong here... and only growing more frustrated when I look to other pages for guidance.

I'll get this done by sometime today. At that point if everyone still disagrees with me go ahead and delete it. Again, my frustration stems more from what I perceived to be pretty arbitrary standards and less from this specific company.

Thanks!

Ps - @Cullen... when you log into Wikipedia where do you go to look for things that need editing? I assume that there would be some sort of portal or forum (ideally broken down into topics) on different topics that need work? Sorry if that's a rookie question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino9813 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

--

--

---

--

--

Hi everyone,

@Cullen gave me some good recommendations on how to pitch this along the lines of what your looking for. I'm not sure what to say other than read this and hopefully it will all make more sense.

Conflict of interest statement:

I am a… I’m not sure what else there would be to disclose but if anyone else wants to know what I ate for breakfast today I’ll be happy to tell you. Any biases I may have should be clear.
 * Male, currently living in the mid-Atlantic region.
 * 26 years old. Until recently I had been employed in the financial industry.  I worked at the same firm for three years, but on the private wealth management side with no connection to these guys.
 * I am the kind of person who reads three newspapers each morning… a news junkie if you will.
 * I am also one of those guys who other people would call a “techie.” That one should be self-explanatory.

My thought process behind making a page for this generically-named company & reasoning for why they are justified in a page:

I made this page because I follow the financial world as well as the “tech” world (in the most general sense) closely. I’ve noticed these guys because they’re always quoted on stories that relate to the financial world’s interaction with, again, in a generic sense, “tech” developments like online banking and investing social media, apps, mobile, whatever. This is why they are important – they are looked to as the authority on these issues and are treated as such by the media. Perhaps there is some competitor both I and the media are unaware of but they seem to be the only one who are the source on this in the most general sense.

So when I Googled them I found that there’s a bunch of cluttered results and when you look at their company page they have the typical corporate BS that is meaningless. And I thought to myself, hm, these guys should really have a Wikipedia page for who they are and it would certainly make things easier. I also realized for the “techie” that I am I have no idea how Wikipedia works. So I joined Wikipedia, attempted my first page, and now I am… here.

I’m sure when you read this, my other posts, or this Wikipedia entry you jumped to whatever stereotypes you have (this guys is an angry buffoon, maybe you saw a name like Corporate Insight and thought that’s clearly some hole in the wall consultancy being written by a PR person) that have been reinforced over the countless times you have probably had to deal with something like this. But just think about this from a new user perspective – instantly shot down – went looking for recommendations or suggestions for a process I don’t yet understand – didn’t get recommendations – then went to look other pages for guidance and instead very different standards across the board and got very frustrated. Think about what it would be like to be a confused new user receiving a hostile reception, and then finding a page like cat organ… anyway big thanks to @Cullen for reaching out to me.

Sources:

Thank you again to Cullen – I was using quantity of sources to show that these guys are always quoted. I thought that would be better but I obviously I was off. As you suggest, here are 3 sources with detail.

Source #1 - What it is: an article about lie detecting technology in Russian ATM’s in the New York Times. Why I included that: To me, them being quoted in this article is a pretty straightforward example of how they are the informal authority on all things tech and finance. Ask yourself – why would Corporate Insight be quoted if they don’t do anything regarding ATM technology or lie detections. Like I said before, it’s because they are the informal authority on all things tech in the finance world. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/business/global/09atm.html?pagewanted=all

Source #2 - What it is: A CNBC article called “financial services get social” discussing the findings of a Corporate Insight report on how social media is changing the financial industry. Why I included that: Again, it seems like a straightforward example of how the financial world looks to this company for its opinions on tech, in this case social media. Link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/39764810/Financial_Services_Get_Social

Source #3 - What it is: A Wall St Journal video of an interview with the President of the company regarding Brokerage reports. Why I included that: It seems like a straightforward example to back up the sentence that they are frequently quoted in financial news agencies. Link: http://online.wsj.com/video/spicing-up-adviser-report-cards/565CAAA8-43E9-4299-9E19-8AC14E7733C5.html?mod=googlewsj

Note: I obviously didn’t use a specific citation style. Does Wikipedia endorse one style? Chicago? MLA? Also, if that’s not the kind of details you were looking for let me or you simply need more detailed sources let me know.

Closing thoughts:

These sources clearly meet the standards of being prominent, reliable, and independent etc. That much shouldn’t be in question. If you accept my reasoning that they are often quoted and in the news as the informal authority on how the financial world interacts with tech developments that this should be a no-brainier.

At this point, the only angle that I can see somewhat eye-to-eye with you guys is if you think that because none of the sources contain something like a quote from the Wall St Journal saying something like “The Wall St Journal considers Corporate Insight to be the authority on all things finance and tech etc. etc.” That is understandable since my word doesn’t mean anything in an impersonal forum like this.

But I don’t agree that that’s necessary. While there are obvious exceptions like government agencies, prominent news outlets like the New York Times, Bloomberg, the Wall St. Journal, etc. don’t tend to make statements like that. When was the last time you read something from a respectable publication outside of the food section that dubbed an entity something like “the official authority” on X. This is especially true when X is something as large as the financial world and tech. In the back of your head you know that’s true. Hence I did not make a statement like that when I made this Wikipedia page, instead opting for a general one noting their frequent press coverage.

If that is really the issue I could probably do some more Google News trolling… but I’ve already put way too much effort into this and I’m not really motivated to do that... nor does that seem necessary. Hopefully the long list of other sources they’re quoted is enough for you to believe me. @dginsights guy you work at the company right? Go ask your press person and find something along those lines.

Let me know if you have any questions. After reading this you may not see eye-to-eye, but hopefully you can see how someone with eyes in my head would see these guys as worthwhile and would initially get very frustrated with this whole process. I am open to any all suggestions or recommendations while I learn this process.

~Marino9813

--Marino9813 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Where do you go looking for work?
So a question to everyone... Anytime you log into Wikipedia looking for something to do... where do you start? I assume there's got to be categorical forums or lists of pages that need more work? Or do you just troll?

Regarding this page, what happens now? Is that a good enough explanation to satisfy everyone?

This is another rookie question but I've tried to start a new discussion on my user page asking that question about where you go looking for work. For some reason I can't get it to show up as a new discussion. It keeps showing up as text at the end of the previous comment thread. It looks like a user who answered my citation question had the same problem. Is that a common problem or am I doing something wrong?

Thanks!

Marino9813 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.