Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Brand Trust Report


 * 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The Brand Trust Report

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable guide / award, fails WP:Notability. The only secondary coverage are press releases by the winning brands that of course say that it's a very prestigious award that they completely deserve, but these don't appear to be significant press releases or serious focuses of advertising; just standard daily churnalism. (This article from The Statesman is about as good as it gets, just copy-pastes a description of the methodology from the website, and is basically a thinly disguised advertisement to buy that year's guide. Other sources are even thinner.)  There are essentially no non-primary sources that have significant coverage that dispassionately describe the award itself, the process, the company, whether winning the award is useful for advertising, etc. and a WP:BEFORE Google search has not turned up any unused sources. It is unlikely there are sources in other languages either - the yearly guide is published only in English, so I don't think untapped Hindi/Urdu/Bengali/etc. language coverage exists. There are a few passing mentions of the award in a few books - but we're not talking very prestigious books, rather random books of unclear sales/relevance from a Google Books search - but again no secondary coverage both merely cite the report on a single page, but don't describe it.)  Doesn't seem close to satisfying WP:THREE even if you think that "The Statesmen" article (the closest to being a real article) counts as coverage. SnowFire (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  04:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, not mentioning it in the nomination statement, but as a side note, the article is also written like an advertisement. AFD is not cleanup, etc., so that isn't a big deal, but I can't really blame the editors - if we honor the sources, it should be written like an advertisement, because that's what 90%+ of the cited sources are, corporate press releases filtered through the media.  Pinging, who made a good effort to find sources after removing a prod deletion proposal two weeks ago, but I'm not convinced that the added sources are enough.  SnowFire (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article about an annual market report, whose content and references are predominantly announcements of ranking listings for various firms, from which notability cannot be inherited here, also with links to the articles on the various firms. The article is doing no more than summarise the headline results of the various editions, without indicating how their collation is in itself notable. There are no articles on the TRA / Trust Research Advisory firm or its Comniscient Group parent which could provide WP:ATD targets; nor would TRA itself meet WP:NCORP if this article was reconstructed to be about the firm whose core work is producing this report. The research for this report appears to involve the Indian Statistical Institute in some way, but their involvement seems too remote for a redirect to the ISI page to be plausible. AllyD (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2022 (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.