Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanover 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanover Research

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

Nonnotable business Staszek Lem (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Company on list of marketing research firms. Comparable to many other research firms in the article space, and more viable sources than most other companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.110.130 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no independent sources which discuss company in depth. Either press releases or mentions in passing. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=140772650 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.110.130 (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is exactly the kind of source which is disregarded in notability discussions: a standard marketing blurb. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Staszek Lem I would also appreciate an explanation for why this article must be deleted when Forrester Research is live in the space and doesn't even have any viable sources attached. All links are not working.
~~Keep~~: Some sources might be press releases or mentions, but others are research articles published by the company. In addition, many of its peers within the marketing research firms page don't even have viable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresearchguy399 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate vote stricken out, per admission. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the same account as 50.74.110.130 . Please don't vote from different accounts. This is forbidden in wikipedia and may get you blocked from editing. In any case, the votes of new users are disregarded in deletion discussions. Therefore if you have a brilliant idea to recruit your boyfriend for this !voting, forget it. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Staszek Lem I am well aware it was the same. I was not logged in for my first vote so I logged in for the second one. Did not mean to cast two. From my experience with Wikipedia though, I appreciate kind collaboration instead of rude remarks via this space. You could be blocked from editing as well for your assumptions and inappropriate remarks. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.110.130 (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this page was the subject of two different discussions regarding the acceptability of Draft:Hanover Research - it was determined that the draft was not acceptable (on top of the three declines). This current version is a copy/paste pagemove, so if kept it will need a histmerge. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. No indications of notability or significance sufficient for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are trivial mentions or PR. No passing of WP:GNG or WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2017 (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.