Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Economics (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Economics

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

Article was deleted by an earlier AfD, but restored after review. Per that review, I am re-listing this at AfD. This is purely an administrative action; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

References
Freeman, Mike (1999-09-29). "Computer Economics wants to hear your cyber beefs". Standard-Speaker. Archived from the original on 2014-12-25. Retrieved 2014-12-25 – via Newspapers.com. The text of the article is also available here^WebCite The article begins: Few firms go out of their way to hear people complain, but Computer Economics Inc. of Carlsbad is doing just that. In the name of research, the company hopes to become a shoulder to cry on for disgruntled cyber shoppers. The 20-year-old firm recently established a toll-free telephone hotline so miffed cyber shoppers can vent about bogus billing, effusive e-mail or poor product delivery in purchases made over the Internet. ... Computer Economics' motivation isn't altruistic. As a consulting company, it sells research services to information-technology firms, including Web-based retailers. By setting up the hotline, Computer Economics hopes to set itself apart from competitors. "We were looking for a way to do something different that other research firms weren't doing," Erbschloe said. The company, with its 26 employees, has been collecting customer satisfaction information through focus groups and surveys, but it wanted to take a more gritty approach. Thus this masochistic marketing scheme.
Delio, Michelle (2002-01-14). "Find the Cost of (Virus) Freedom". Wired. Archived from the original on 2014-12-25. Retrieved 2014-12-25. The article notes: To estimate the damage, media organizations nearly always turn to Computer Economics -- a California-based research firm whose primary business is to advise companies on technology investment and marketing strategies. But many industry experts wonder how the company arrives at these seemingly exorbitant figures. Some antivirus firms and industry watchdogs said that Computer Economics is less than forthcoming about the specific data, sources and processes that it uses to tabulate the economic impact of viruses. Some experts say that lack of documentation renders any virus-damage statistics from the company all but useless. ... Rosenberger lists Computer Economics in his site's "Hysteria Roll Call" list, a who's who of people feeding the flames of computer virus hysteria. Based on http://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/05/67428, other articles by Michelle Delio had issues with their being unable to confirm quotes from anonymous sources. But this article does not cite anonymous sources, and it was not retracted by Wired, so I consider it reliable.
Leyden, John (2002-01-16). "Lies, damned lies and anti-virus statistics". The Register. Archived from the original on 2008-07-26. Retrieved 2014-12-25. The article begins: Computer Economics has published its assessment of the damage worldwide caused by malicious code attacks in 2001 - the figure comes in at a whopping $13.2 billion. This is 23 per cent less than 2000, the year of the Love Bug, when damages from viruses were estimated at $17.1bn. In 1999 the cost to the world was $12.1 billion in 1999, Computer Economics says. The research firm has totted up the damage wreaked by viruses each year since 1995, But the results are controversial. Critics in the antivirus industry dismiss Computer Economics assessment of the damage caused by the combined effects of Nimda ($635 million), Code Red variants ($2.62 billion), SirCam ($1.15 billion) et al last year as a "guesstimate".

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Computer Economics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging WP:DRV participants User:Fscavo, User:postdlf, User:LaMona, and User:Hobit. Cunard (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a COI on this article and should not weigh in on the decision. However, I am willing to suggest a rewrite of the article on the article's talk page, incorporating the sources listed above, if that would be helpful. Fscavo (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very uncomfortable with that as you are the president of the company. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fscavo is welcome, as would be any COI editor, to submit rewritten passages at the Talk page of the article, and to submit "edit requests" about incorporating such info into the article. By the end of the DRV, Fscavo seems well enough aware of COI policy (e.g. see posting at 26 December). So this is helpful, not a problem. --do ncr am 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the DRV, the sources meet WP:N. They are actually fairly good but are mainly about the work-product of CE not the company itself. weak keep. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the articles exist, I do not see sufficient content in them about the company to create a viable article. All of the articles here are mainly discussions about the topics the company reports on, not the company itself, and not even much about the company's products, except to say that people use them. Also note that 1) the articles listed here are not what were on the original article put up for AfD 2) none are more recent than 2002. Thirteen-year-old articles for a current corporation, given how quickly business changes, are not suitable sources. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The DRV discussion contains sources in addition to the above-posted set of sources. As noted in the DRV by someone, the pre-2002 sources are still valid; notability is not temporary. Importantly, though, the firm remains in the news, e.g. this September 2014 article in CFO (magazine), which I find from the firm's "in the news" webpage of press coverage. The article is not about the firm, per se, but rather is about a product of the firm, which is a survey of IT professionals done by the firm (and available for sale). It's marketing, yes, but the survey itself is a product of the firm. Other coverage through the years is also about products, if you consider its product to be research/information about the IT industry. The firm is taken to be a reliable-enough source for many trade publications and is occasionally quoted in wider media (e.g. this 2008 New York Times article contains a quip from the CEO (which I also found from the firm's "in the news" page). Since the firm is cited in news articles, having a Wikipedia article on it provides a reference service to readers. To Fscavo, if you are a PR manager or whatever, it would behoove you to facilitate some future coverage more directly about the firm itself in a reliable-for-Wikipedia source. I have no prior connection to the topic, just came across this at AFD. I believe that, overall, coverage is sufficient and keeping is better. --do ncr am 18:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 16:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Unfortunately, what you list here as references sounds exactly what is excluded in corporate notability: "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" and "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". LaMona (talk) 18:12, 24 January 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.