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. Consensus to delete. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ABI Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company does not appear to pass WP:CORP. The references provide just one in-depth article about the company, from its hometown paper. In a search I found no additional independent coverage - just press releases and user-supplied information at sites like CNBC and Bloomberg. A Google News search finds occasional passing mentions of one of their reports, but nothing about the company. MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Barely notable company that's been the subject of promo edits repeatedly. As MelanieN said, sources are just passing mentions or press releases. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 02:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear to be notable, indeed. -- Luk ^talk 13:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reconsider Many sources of direct citations in respected media apart from press releases as well as other factors.Timwiki99 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: See also the comment at User talk:Timwiki99. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Appears user has strong conflict of interest. Thanks for pointing that out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. User was very direct and honest about that but encourages you to look at the facts, not at the user. Timwiki99 (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: See also the comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ABI Research. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Sources I do agree that it is important for Wikipedia to adhere to WP:CORP. The issue becomes how do we define "notable". This standard needs more objectivity. Certainly having only a handful of people weigh in on this debate is insufficient. I believe it is only fair and objective for anyone stating here that the company is not notable to do some research of their own to back up that position. Here are some further citations not from company PR (I pulled these together in less than 10 minutes and I suspect one could find hundreds more if one invests the time):

ABI quoted in 1994 about a technology that today is finally getting a lot of attention: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/01/business/technology-putting-space-age-expertise-in-the-driver-s-seat.html

ABI’s Nick Marshall recognized as top 100 Wireless experts: http://www.todayswirelessworld.com/top100/

ABI’s Nick Spencer was interviewed by the WSJ for this story: http://www.wsj.com/articles/challenge-of-apple-watch-defining-its-purpose-1424133615

Stu Carlaw, ABI’s CRO, invited to be a judge at the world’s largest wireless conference: http://www.globalmobileawards.com/awards-history/judges-2012/#

Stu Carlaw interviewed by the ITU (a sub group of the UN): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jxfdqX4Fwg

Stu Carlaw hosts major conference session with COO of publicly traded company Cablevision and CEO of Tele2: http://www.mobileworldcongress.com/sessions/5124589889781760/

Michela Menting, ABI’s cybersecurity analyst, interviewed and quoted by Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/02/18/could-nsa-turn-your-hard-drive-into-cyber-spy/

Wireless expert Jeff Orr with ABI interviewed and quoted by NY Times: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/business/international/lenovo-no-1-in-pcs-aims-at-us-smartphone-market.html?_r=0 Timwiki99 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, barely appears notable. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The Long Island Business News article was a good, in-depth profile, but kind of dated and not really the kind of information we can use in the article. Then there are quotes in the media, but according to WP:NORG, quotes from an organization's personnel as story sources don't count toward notability. And frankly, considering the business model, I think this about all we are going to get. The company is successful, so my guess is that the market reports are pretty good. But they're confidential, so we can't see them. Since we are going to be more or less dependent on the company for press releases or whatever it chooses to reveal about itself, I think this is a case where it's just not a topic for an encyclopedia article. We're not a business directory, and having an article in Wikipedia is no big deal. Especially one this short, which is about all we can write. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Capitulating, Ok. It is still unclear to me how we define notable. If you were to ask 10,000 people randomly which is more notable, ABI or Alexandrine Grammarians, I am guessing you would have a much higher incidence (but still not very high) for ABI^[1]. And I enjoyed the article on Alexandrine Grammarians honestly and I do not believe it should be deleted. I bring it up just to make a point. In the circles of technology analysis and market intelligence, ABI is quite well known. But I will let this go as it has no material impact on ABI and I am sure the volunteer editors here have better things to do. I appreciate all your work and will continue to enjoy Wikipedia and send in my annual donations, even though I disagree with you all here. But, in the interest of real objectivity, it would be great if you applied the same critical eye to other pages like this one. A few examples of many:
  • Frost & Sullian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_%26_Sullivan
  • Ovum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovum_Ltd.
  • Yankee Group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Group

Timwiki99 (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable", as Wikipedia uses the term, is defined very clearly at WP:GNG and WP:CORP. It means the company has received significant coverage (published reporting) from independent reliable sources. "Significant", "independent", and "reliable" are also very clearly defined. It's true that "notable" may not be the best word to describe this requirement, because a company may think of itself as "notable" in other ways. Maybe we should call it "coverage", or "recognition". But the bottom line is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we need to see significant coverage from third parties before we can include a subject here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it. Companies in our industry tend to contribute to reporting on other companies. Generally, our industry doesn't itself get covered much. Perhaps this is the nature of the intelligence business. Anyway, we have withdrawn our arguments against deletion. Our only request as written above is that some objective source (should not be us) review the pages of similar entries on Wikipedia. It would be grossly unfair to not apply this standard equally. Timwiki99 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a list of other companies you feel are similarly situated and post it to my talk page so they can be considered for deletion. I agree that its a problem for some companies to have articles while their competitors of similar size do not. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because this article can't be more than a stub with the sources available. Not enough coverage. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.