Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESOMAR


 * 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. WP:REFUND applies. Soft deletion is the outcome here because the only opinion apart from the nominator's has, in the end, been a neutral one...  Sandstein  21:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

ESOMAR

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no 3rd party references, and highly promotional in the sense of giving information of concern only  to members or prospective members. I was not ableto find anything substnatial on Google News or even Google.  DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral: Keep: Weak keep:  (changed due to new sources added to article) Immediate thought. I can see I edited this about 3 weeks ago and while I forget what brought me here the connection with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and in particular the ICC/ESOMAR Code on Market, Opinion and Social Research and Data Analytics was the key point.  But independent sourcing on article doesn't look good.  At that visit I think I detected some COI editing and proably focused on sourcing from the ICC about any claims ESOMAR were making about that joint document.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been working on the article and have removed COI influence from the lede and am working through the reset of the article, particularly with regards to membership number claims needing to be checked and a number of other details. In terms of notability resources per WP:RS per WP:THREE I have so far added to the article and these should be sufficient:Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have also worked over the article and the degree of promotionalism should be far less and COI biased editting eliminated. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have also worked over the article and the degree of promotionalism should be far less and COI biased editting eliminated. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have also worked over the article and the degree of promotionalism should be far less and COI biased editting eliminated. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have also worked over the article and the degree of promotionalism should be far less and COI biased editting eliminated. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Happy Festivities! //  J 947  (c) 20:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: If three reasonable sources are presented for WP:RS consideration and unchallenged for 2 weeks is the argument not won? Even the nom. has not commented on those sources which is reasonably to be expected in 48 hours if no-one else has done so.  I am ANNOYED by the relister  Happy Festivities! on their WP:SIGAPP and inappropriate for performing administrative functions.  An intelligent relisting comment might be: "Please comment on the presented sources".  Happy Festivities! simply means go and get a life away from WP:AFD, get tonked and honked don't bother contributing here!.  Bah Humbug! Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * General consensus is that another editor has to agree with you for a keep result except if the nominator offers a illegitimate deletion statement like 'No reliable sources in the article'. The job of a relister is to judge the consensus in the discussion; they cannot use their own argument on the validity of the sources and therefore a different editor must weigh in. i do not often relist anymore and mostly only do so in clear-cut circumstances like this one. My signature is meant to be optimistic for the holiday season and for your sake I will not use it for any further comments on this AfD. I did not think a relisting comment would be needed as it was pretty obvious why the relist took place unless some absolute dimwit comes along and completely disregards your comment.  J 947  (c) 21:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Having put effort into this (and further might be put if necessary). Per WP:RELIST while having having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors.  Over the festivities period is pretty dishearting also ... somewhat inaptly pointed out by Happy Festivities.  While my comment should be sufficient to indicate what needs to be considered it was ignored on the previous relist and is not independent whereas the evaluation and comment of the relister is.  Bah Humbug.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * An impartial relister cannot just rely on you alone. There is no consensus as of yet and further discussion is definitely needed.  J 947  (c) 00:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with above comment beginning ... Impartial lister ... which has been ignored) I've taken the advice of the relister ... decided to have happy festivities ... self reverted my own work from oldid 930441082 to oldid 931316205. I can no longer sustain any sort of !vote in this discussion so I have removed to neutral.  People may say I am mad to do this ... perhaps some may say I've gone off my head and been on the porter too much but that's what the relist said.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2019 (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.