Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemius


 * 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. Given that most "keep" opinions are qualified as week, I'm also considering the current quality of the article, which as might be expected is rather promotional. I guess if somebody really wants to they can recreate this from scratch with solid sources.  Sandstein  08:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Gemius

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A business notable only for its annoying add-on trackware spread with freeware, which everybody wants to remove. ,, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Article certainly needs improvement. But its got reliable sources out there, granted mostly in Polish-language articles, but reliable sources still. And complaints about the company are not reasons to delete. If anything, those complaints might be a reason to keep the page if they are covered in reliable sources. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All sources are exclusively gemius. COmplaints are from ordinary customers and antivirus tool vendors respond to them by adjusting their software. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: No sign of notability - all the sources are primary, from the company itself. Complaints alone cannot confer notability either. And there's no such thing as "weak keep". Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing solidly convincing better for the necessary notability, not convincing for an article yet. SwisterTwister   talk  03:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I am hardly a supporter of corpspam, but this one has a bit of business-like coverage in Polish media (besides being often mentioned in passing as a source of data on the Polish Internet like in ; the company's data is frequently cited in book sources too). For example, , , , , . While those are not major news pieces, they still constitute some reliable coverage (particularly if one has no prejudice against trade journals like Techchrunch and their Polish equivalents) together with the company being cited very often in Poland I think it passes WP:N. Ping User:SwisterTwister, User:Chiswick Chap, User:Staszek Lem. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I looked for English language sources on this company, I couldn't find any which were substantial enough and from sufficiently high quality sources to justify inclusion. I did find a few reliable sources citing the company's Internet research reports, but I don't think citing a report by the company is actually enough to justify notability of the company itself (the citation is about the contents of the research report not about the company that authored it.) The "weak" part is because I see a lot of Polish language sources mentioning this company, and I cannot confidently judge whether those Polish language sources are enough to establish notability. SJK (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I looked for Polish sources and English sources. The company has a lot of reliable media coverage, only for a very specific market part (digital industry/ Internet research) but is mentioned as a leader in the CEE region. The sources are reliable but there're not so many of them. The memberships show the company as legit. I also think it passes WP:N. Ping even if part of the sources are primary - they supported by other. — Qwertyqwertyqwerty135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:02, 25 April 2016‎ (UTC).
 * I looked at the history of your contributions, and all of your contributions appear to be on the topic of this company. This raises concerns that you may have a conflict of interest, e.g. you may work for them or be associated with them in some capacity. Could you please confirm whether you have any affiliation with them? SJK (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm working in online industry and came across them many times but couldn't find any information. I found information about other companies (AdForm, Comscore, Gfk, Nielsen) but not about them. I'm a new wiki contributor. I added more external links for this article to support it's credibility. Could you elaborate how to improve tis article to make it ok with all neccessary terms? Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:18 PM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyqwertyqwerty135 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.