Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnston Research Inc.


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Johnston Research Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No real claim of corporate notability. Moving to draft space would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete only at least compared to what this emulates and shows about the company, since it's simply a business listing with the simple company-specifics, clear violations of our policies. SwisterTwister   talk  04:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions) 05:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions) 05:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to draft space or delete: It's poorly written, I'd say give them one chance to salvage it. Looks like some interesting stuff being done, but I agree with Robert on this one.   Montanabw (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to draft-space A preliminary Google search shows some signs of possible notability. The edit summary of the move to mainspace strongly suggests it was a simple error and that Draft-space was the intended destination anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Notwithstanding the move error, the source analysis below shows that this is highly unlikely to be a notable subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment and analysis - The sourcing I see here in both the current article and searches such as this one show nothing but clear business announcements, mentions, company quotes and all similar. For example, take (current article): 1 is a map and 2 to 3 are all company webpages Now from my searches:
 * 1 to 10 are all clearly labeled company announcements
 * the next 10 are all still clear company announcements, including from the same labeled publications
 * same goes for the next 10, except a few publications now in being locally published announcements
 * same goes the next 10
 * same goes for the next 10 which continually include such labels as "This is a press release" or a PR trade publication
 * exactly the same goes for the next 10
 * actually worse now for the next 10 here because the PR ones largely outweigh the few supposedly better ones
 * So this all, not only questions why our policies themselves, would accept such violations of both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT, but also the fact no one else has actually shown how this can be convincingly improved, because I myself am unable to improve it using these sources. We move articles to Draftspace only when there's a conceivable chance of actually accepting it or quite close to it, and the sources shown haven't convinced us it will happen, hence it would simply be hosting a business page for a company initiating its own advertising. SwisterTwister   talk  03:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm persuaded that moving to draft space isn't in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2017 (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.