Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynata


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Dynata

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Sources rely on press releases masquerading as legitimate sources. The CNN article is more about Meyerson, a non notable figure. Appears to be primarily written by someone close to the subject with little more expansion from third parties to meet notability guidelines realistically possible. Outdatedpizza (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Connecticut,  and Texas.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete zero hits on the company, hits on the name for anything and everything else though. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would this article be a candidate for deletion? Dynata is a real company that does real business that annoys real people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C42:657F:972A:5545:693F:5816:F534 (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has specific objective criteria at WP:N and the claim is that this article fails those criteria.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  21:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Unsure The sources are poor as claimed. I want to share something - this is not a rationale for keeping, but this is weird -
 * https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Dynata
 * According to Wikipedia Pageviews, this has been a very popular (top 1%?) Wikipedia article by traffic for some months, and rather popular before that. It is very uncommon for an organization to have such popularity without there existing good media coverage. I presume we are missing sources, or otherwise, there is something weird happening here.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  21:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Phones on the T-Mobile network are now saying the company's name. People want to know what scam or whatever is calling them and Google it, and Wikipedia is one of the top hits. It is just another nonnotable company per the sources.Outdatedpizza (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could be someone messing with their Google rankings to try and get page views to support whatever funding project the company might have going on. "Look we're in the top 1% on wikipedia, give us a loan" as proof of a viable business. Who knows. Oaktree b (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a market research company, so a PR company. That's what they do, is drum up business by getting more page views. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * You guys are the experts (I can tell by the special language you use) whereas I am just a common reader who mostly contributes money. But it seems that if this article (Dynata) receives a lot of hits it probably shows that people have a lot of interest in this real company.
 * On the other hand, the experts say it (the Dynata article) is poorly written so the rules say it should be deleted.
 * Isn't there room for a more moderate position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HefnerHarperHall (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I know you are just talking things through, but in practice what you are requesting is the elimination of third-party fact checking. Wikipedia already has the lowest possible standards anyone in the world can imagine, short of eliminating quality control. There is a 20-year near unanimous agreement that we should keep fact checking and not accept material which cannot be fact checked. What we really need are published reliable sources - find those and bring them here, if they exist. They seem to not exist.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  20:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Hi, came here after I googled the spam calls I keep getting from a number that's clearly not local, despite having the same area code. The large spike in page views is likely related. 68.36.170.135 (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2022 (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.