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 move to draft space. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AIRINC[edit]

AIRINC (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 article is written like an advertisement for AIRINC, and has zero references to reliable sources. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 22:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I found this and this, which is perhaps enough; but all other mentions seem to be of data generated by these folks. We could possibly make an argument for inclusion based on the widespread use of their data as a source in the media, too [1]. There isn't very much stuff out there, though. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator. This should have been PRODded under G11: "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." I believe that this is the case here: this so-called article reads like advertising copy. But if I'm not mistaken, it's generally considered bad form to propose a speedy on a page that's already under discussion. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 07:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's simply nothing convincing enough to suggest better satisfying the applicable guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  "Associates for International Research" has coverage at investing.businessweek.com, which tends to have inclusion criteria similar to Wikipedia's, has a corporate model that requires that their information be reliable, and has an army of reporters.  Google scholar for "Associates for International Research" shows 48 results.  "AIRINC" has 138 hits, and a snippet on the first page in a 1982 source reads, "Each year AIRINC staff conduct price surveys for over 300 goods and services weighted to represent typical purchases of executive families at two income levels, $35,000 and $70,000".  Two articles, one a national source, and one an international source, with in-depth reliable information satisfies the WP:GNG guideline, lots more at Google Scholar to review, and no one has mentioned if they have looked at Google books.  There are certainly negative things to be said about the article, like there is no infobox, we don't know the number of employees or annual income, and there is no history.  But the reality is that this is what Wikipedia has accomplished with this article up to the year 2016.  The complaint that it is written like an advertisement is a stretch for my imagination, and I suspect that this is the sense intended by the nomination.  It is an international business in business since 1954.  Yes, prod might have been a better choice.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft space. Of the sources in the article, they are either mentions of the subject as a source for data, or a clear press release. Perhaps the others will show notability , but they have to be actually found and added. And the full context in the JSTOR article needs to be checked. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 4 February 2016 (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.