Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist 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.  MBisanz  talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Research

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Major contributor appears to be an SPA, and only link on page has a trivial mention of an employee at the firm. Seems to be some sort of advertorial type page. No coverage came up when I did my own search. Seems like this fails WP:CORP. mikeman67 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No non-trivial coverage of the business. There are quite a few extremely-passing mentions, because its founder was formerly head of corporate market research at Amazon, and has been occasionally quoted in media about his time in that capacity. There are also quite a few false positives; so far as I can determine, all of the scholarly journals that include the phrase "zeitgeist research" do so in some capacity other than this business. Honestly, I'm struggling to find a reliable, independent source that even describes so much as what this company does, much less supports an article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as I haven't even started looking closely at this but it seems obvious alone there's not much for an article at this time. SwisterTwister   talk  07:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and above editors. Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:41, 21 October 2015 (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.