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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merlien Institute Market Research Conferences (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)

Promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even though the article has some sources it seems to me that this article is made to promote rather than inform.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  I looked at [1] and [2].  Both are about the 2013 Market Research and the Mobile World (MRMW) conference.  Both are in-depth (and IMO interesting) in the ideas coming out of the conference, but there is no analysis of the conference as a business, such as profit margin for the promoter.  The number one problem for the article here is that there is no such thing as "Merlien Institute Market Research Conferences", meaning that this is a WP:SYNTHESIS.  This is a case in point as to why we should enforce with software a requirement to have a reference for the title of the article.  There are four separate topics in this article:

1. Merlien Institute
2. HeraldBoy Research and Technological News, an online newsmagazine
3. MRMW, conference and tradeshow
4. Qualitative 360 (I haven't looked at the references enough to say what this is)

I looked at the "About Us" for the online newsmagazine, and while they solicit material there is no assurance to readers that they are exercising editorial control on the content, so this may or may not be a WP:RS.  It has only been managed by Merlien Institute since early 2013.  I also looked at the "Contributors" page, which mentions the concept "peer review" without stating the extent to which peer review is used.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  I looked for secondary coverage of the newsmagazine.  I found two articles on Google news dated February, so perhaps Google news is starting to carry them.  I looked at Google web for the top thirty snippets for ["HeraldBoy" Merlien] and saw nothing secondary and independent.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  In a web search on [Merlien], I found [3], which probably counts as a WP:RS blog.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  Fails WP:SYNTH, WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:Deletion policy.  Maybe I'm not locating the right secondary independent WP:RS sources; but if so, Merlien could help Wikipedia editors by providing a list of such sources on a tab on their website.  It would also help if these sources provided evidence that these topics are having a long-term effect on the world.  Meanwhile, there are WP:Alternative outlets.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2014 (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.