Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaCurves


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

MediaCurves

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:CORP. Nearly impossible to decipher in a web search any reliable sources because the entity is involved on media and internet marketing, and so sources are skewed. See the review of the sources below:

Serious reference issues

 * 1) http://webfloss.com/hcd-research/ – Fluff.
 * 2) http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1190661/mediacurves_web_site_posts_top_five_media_studies_of_2007/index.html — PR web posting. Not neutral.
 * 3) http://www.linkedin.com/companies/hcd-research — A company's self-created profile on another website is not a reliable source, nor is it independent.
 * 4) http://www.lead411.com/Company_HCDResearchInc_Kessler_371771.html — Another company profile; no in-depth coverage.
 * 5) http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/CompanyDetail.aspx?CompanyID=33802692&cs=QECA8nE7k&IndustryBin=MARKETING&Product=advertising+research&page=1&companyDesc=advertising+research — See above.
 * 6) http://www.businessyellowpages.info/company/20734 — Again...
 * 7) http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/node/128861/pdf — PR web posting again. Not neutral.
 * 8) http://www.politicsonline.com/globalcontent/elections/elections2004/ — No mention of the subject.
 * 9) http://politicalresources.com/Webnotes/issue4_6bot.htm — No mention of the subject.
 * 10) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330661,00.html — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way.
 * 11) http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/04/bitter_remark_does_not_seem_to_1.html — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way.
 * 12) http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/money/doritos_ad2131312 — See above.
 * 13) http://www.pratttribune.com/news/business/x512385650/Biz-Bits-Confused-about-the-TV-switch-Some-answers-to-your-questions — Again...
 * 14) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27217062 — And again...
 * 15) http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20080320/20mar20081825.html — Another PR web posting. Not neutral.
 * 16) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/10/AR2009071002935.html — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way.
 * 17) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0713parkerjul13,0,3310359.column — See above.
 * 18) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/11/american-idol-4.html — Again...
 * 19) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95567799 — And again...
 * 20) http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/07-20-2009/0005062952&EDATE= — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. PR web posting. Not neutral.
 * 21) http://www.newfluwiki2.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3570 — A wiki regurgitation of a PR posting by the company.
 * 22) http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/sports/dpgo_Study_A_Rod_Scandal_Erodes_Public_Trust2146033 — Again, this does not indicate why the subject is notable.
 * 23) http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/HCD-Research-and-Muhlenberg-College-Will-Use-an-Index-to-Monitor-Physicians-and-Consumers-Perceptions-of-Health-Care-Reform-39474-1/ — Regurgitation of a PR web posting by the company.
 * 24) http://www.cnbc.com/id/32013911 — Does not discuss the subject in a non-trivial way.
 * 25) http://www.viewpoints.com/HCDSurveys-com-review-f2ea3 — Non-notable reviewer on a user-generated content website. Doesn't establish notability.
 * 26) http://www.fox43tv.com/dpp/sports/nfl/nfl_schedule/superbowl_dpg_Pick_top_Super_Bowl_commercials_fc_200901272177206 — Still doesn't establish notability.
 * 27) http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1717923/majority_of_americans_say_congressman_kings_comments_about_michael_jackson/index.html — See above.
 * 28) http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/HCD-Research-and-Muhlenberg-College-Will-Use-an-Index-to-Monitor-Physicians-and-Consumers-Perceptions-of-Health-Care-Reform-39474-1/ — Regurgitation of a PR web posting by the company. Repeated reference.

None of these sources actually discuss the company or its impact. Using its appearance in the sources above to infer notability is original research, and we don't do that here. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC) and especially
 * Delete: per nom and it is clear that this was created by someone associated with the company (Ben the Intern) for purposes of promotion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * keep This is a recurrent problem with such companies--newspapers refer to them in the context of their surveys. But looking more carefully, not only do they do major surveys that are widely quoted, they seem to be the leading or representative  web survey company. . It's hard to sort out material about the company in  a gsearch: but I think I can do a little better at it than that intern:
 * 1) http://newsblaze.com/story/2008090314530200003.pnw/topstory.html "Mediacurves Offers Real-Time View of Americans' Reactions to McCain's Acceptance Speech" discusses the actual survey, not the results
 * 2) http://digitalpivot.com/tag/media-curves/ "Making pundits obsolete"  Uses the company as its one example of such web-survey companies.
 * 3) http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1190661/mediacurves_web_site_posts_top_five_media_studies_of_2007/index.html "MediaCurves Web Site Posts Top Five Media Studies of 2007" Discusses the actual company (but it's from PR-newswire)
 * 4) http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/28/a_square_yard_of_fabric_makes_a_boring,_foreign_sahm* "A Square Yard of Fabric Makes a Boring, Foreign SAHM"  Academic who compares her prize-winning thesis with their data.
 * 5) http://www.viewpoints.com/HCDSurveys-com-review-f2ea3 What seems like an independent review, though not from an authority
 * 6) http://www.slate.com/id/2163519/   by Andy Bowers of Slate -- refers to them as "our partners"
 * [http://www.utne.com/2008-02-28/Politics/Political-Perceptions-As-They-Happened.aspx  Utne makes specific reference to the quality of their work
 * http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/86809 "Thoughts On The Biden/Palin Debate" An expliciot comparison of them with other survey methods --from a blog, but an editorial by the  well known guy who runs the entire blog site--http://www.411mania.com/the411
 * http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=VP&p_theme=vp&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=123873FFEEC92858&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "New polling system tracks viewers' instant impressions of debate System taps text and instant messages to gauge impressions" An actual independent news article about the company and its methods.
 * I think that last one settles it. DGG (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Keepper DGG. Moreover, media companies rarely cover media research companies so we should give them a little more leeway.--Pink Bull (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  10:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm a little doubtful about this article, and I've vacillated several times in formulating my reply; but on balance, I think at AfD, the benefit of the doubt belongs on the "keep" side. My feeling is that this article is light onreliable sources, but I also feel that MediaCurves are a reliable source in their own right, which implies to me that they should have an article.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:44, 31 July 2009 (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.