Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primary Global Research


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary Global Research

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article seems to exist primarily to support a section on a federal investigation of the company. An editor has been repeatedly removing the information on the investigation, which is well-sourced material, and adding press-release puffery instead. The puffery doesn't belong there, and the material on the investigation does not establish the notability of the company, especially since it is only an investigation and not any sort of criminal conviction. Since there doesn't seem to be anything to say about the company except these two things, just having an article with a bunch of allegations in it is probably serious undue weight. As the company is only marginally notable at best, deletion seems like the best approach here. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Speedy delete. There's no showing in the better version with the sourced material about the insider trading allegations is anything other than a routine such investigation.  The current version is unreferenced patent nonsense, deliberately written to be rosily meaningless: an independent investment research firm that provides financial institutions with primary market intelligence generated through a global network of industry experts. PGR provides its clients the ability to generate primary or fundamental industry research through a number of channels including carefully matched, direct consultations with experts; primary data with additive insight and analysis generated by PGR's in-house analyst staff and interactive archival industry information via a proprietary digital information portal.  Not surprising to find out that this consulting business is involved in an insider trading case.  This is who spammers are and what they do.  The current version qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising, patent nonsense, and given the fact that this firm apparently promoted itself to acquire access to confidential information which was then misused, likely vandalism as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment For the sake of argument, I show that your invalid, under PoV, rationale: 'The article should be deleted because they are villains', is countered by another: 'The article, and its "Insider Trading Investigation" section, should be retained to show their villainy'. Note that due to the subjective nature of PoV and N, more valid arguments which sound similar to these two can be constructed. Anarchangel (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (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.