Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:451 Research

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. No consensus to delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:451 Research


Non-notable company written by COI editor. Article reads like an advertisement. There's a long list of references, but none of them meet the requirements of WP:NCORP -- RoySmith (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Per SmokeyJoe, Robert McClenon, and DES's comments below, I'm withdrawing my nomination as being the wrong process. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Decline per WP:NMFD. MfD is not for discussing notability. Plausibly notable.  COI is abhavioural not deletion matter.  Not strikingly advertisement or promotion, is an attempt to present neutrally.  NCORP, see NMFD.  What’s needed instead of MfD, which the author will not read, which fails to address the source of the problem, is better information to new drafters and better decline statements.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep long enough to let him submit it and possibly find a neutral editor to work on it. (It is likely that no one will do that.  If not, not.)  There is no policy against developing or submitting a declared COI draft.  (Whether there should be is another question.)  In this case, I think I agree with User:SmokeyJoe.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I have give the author the best advice, on his talk page. I think he deserves credit for being honest.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep (for now) as per . We can't tell if this is notable until sources, if any exist, are presented. In any case notability should not be relevant at MfD. This does not look excessively promotional. No policy-based reason for deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I was aware that there was quite a significant conflict of interest. Reading all this now, I think I'm out of my depth... My aim was to create a basis from which others could contribute and add, but as you've mentioned, my experience is limited. I raised this conflict of interest with a view of openness - if I hadn't raised this conflict, would it had been regarded as biased? I tried to write neutral, and I used citations (although appreciate now that they're not great)

I do, however, think the page is notable. There are quite a few mentions of the company, which currently do not link to a 451 Research page: Industry analyst Yankee Group Uptime Institute There are more minor mentions I found by searching for "451 Research". Some of these pages have been in existence for years.

Furthermore, there are also pages for smaller or similar size companies in the same sector. For instance, Wikibon (although this has issues flagged), Ovum Ltd., Cambashi and others.

More than willing to work with someone or amend as necessary. Owenrog (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen there sote used as a source. I think notability can be slesgablisged. Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.