- 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. MBisanz talk 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Market Research Society ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. A pile of "sources" is given but the bulk are WP:PRIMARY, one is a trivial mention (just the name), another doesn't mention the subject at all and the one remaining was a story at research-live about their "sister" publication winning an award from these people. I was led here from the Kogan Page article, where we've been dealing with what appears to have been paid placement of articles about the authors they publish, discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rachel Josephson/Archive. This looks similarly suspect to me. Msnicki ( talk) 14:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support for the article
I posted this article not on behalf of Kogan Page (with whom I have no relationship), but because I felt it would be helpful to fill an important gap.
I think the issue here is not notability, but evidence for that (which I accept could do with some bulking up - any suggestions are very welcome). I've worked in the market research profession for over a decade and there is no doubt that the MRS is a highly reputable and important institution. For example, the market research industry in the UK is worth £3 billion annually and the MRS is the representative body for that industry. Or a look at the list of leading individuals (e.g. Sir Martin Sorrel) who support the MRS's work as Patrons shows how well respected it is. It also publishes one of the key academic journals in this area - the International Journal of Market Research.
So I feel removing the article would be inappropriate and would leave a whole in Wikipedia's coverage of the market research industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andydalg ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Notability references added
To start the ball rolling on proving notability I've added references to the MRS from the BBC (UK's public broadcaster) and The Herald (Scottish newspaper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andydalg ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your new references are basically trivial mentions. One quote the MRS on their position and the other only mentions their name. Neither offers useful material actually about the subject. Msnicki ( talk) 16:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK, how about those I've now added as references in the first sentence of the article. Two specifically describe the MRS as the world's largest professional body in this area, and the other lists it under world research associations. All three sources are highly credible - the UK government, WARC (a best practice organisation) and MRWEB (a key online trade publication for the industry).( talk • contribs) 08:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 10:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The article is still heavily sourced from primary sources. The WARC and the MRWEB are both member directory listings, and therefore are not neutral sources. Neither of those therefore support notability. The reference (#7 at the moment) to a WP page should be removed -- WP pages cannot be used as references. Of the few third-party references, none are significantly about MRS. Given this, it may be sufficient that MRS is listed on the WP Market research page, as sources do not support a separate article. LaMona ( talk) 15:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:ORG. article is almost all based on primary sources with no evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 06:58, 20 July 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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. MBisanz talk 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Market Research Society ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. A pile of "sources" is given but the bulk are WP:PRIMARY, one is a trivial mention (just the name), another doesn't mention the subject at all and the one remaining was a story at research-live about their "sister" publication winning an award from these people. I was led here from the Kogan Page article, where we've been dealing with what appears to have been paid placement of articles about the authors they publish, discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rachel Josephson/Archive. This looks similarly suspect to me. Msnicki ( talk) 14:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support for the article
I posted this article not on behalf of Kogan Page (with whom I have no relationship), but because I felt it would be helpful to fill an important gap.
I think the issue here is not notability, but evidence for that (which I accept could do with some bulking up - any suggestions are very welcome). I've worked in the market research profession for over a decade and there is no doubt that the MRS is a highly reputable and important institution. For example, the market research industry in the UK is worth £3 billion annually and the MRS is the representative body for that industry. Or a look at the list of leading individuals (e.g. Sir Martin Sorrel) who support the MRS's work as Patrons shows how well respected it is. It also publishes one of the key academic journals in this area - the International Journal of Market Research.
So I feel removing the article would be inappropriate and would leave a whole in Wikipedia's coverage of the market research industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andydalg ( talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Notability references added
To start the ball rolling on proving notability I've added references to the MRS from the BBC (UK's public broadcaster) and The Herald (Scottish newspaper) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andydalg ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Your new references are basically trivial mentions. One quote the MRS on their position and the other only mentions their name. Neither offers useful material actually about the subject. Msnicki ( talk) 16:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK, how about those I've now added as references in the first sentence of the article. Two specifically describe the MRS as the world's largest professional body in this area, and the other lists it under world research associations. All three sources are highly credible - the UK government, WARC (a best practice organisation) and MRWEB (a key online trade publication for the industry).( talk • contribs) 08:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 23:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 10:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The article is still heavily sourced from primary sources. The WARC and the MRWEB are both member directory listings, and therefore are not neutral sources. Neither of those therefore support notability. The reference (#7 at the moment) to a WP page should be removed -- WP pages cannot be used as references. Of the few third-party references, none are significantly about MRS. Given this, it may be sufficient that MRS is listed on the WP Market research page, as sources do not support a separate article. LaMona ( talk) 15:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:ORG. article is almost all based on primary sources with no evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 06:58, 20 July 2015 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.