Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prohaska Consulting

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prohaska Consulting

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. promotional tone constantly talking about 'growth and 'due diligence'; reads like an advert. Sources are typical press release cruft, or brief mentions. We must be especially wary of companies that are involved in PR and marketing, as they can Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Web_article_detailing_Tony_Ahn's_editing_process easily plant articles into the press. Not strong enough sources for CORPDEPTH — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere brought up several important points to review the article. Upon further review, there was substantial room to remove wordage that could read like an advert. Revised to comply with WP:MOSWTW and avoid potential for attributed bias WP:SUBSTANTIATE. In regards to Due diligence, this is a common service provided by consulting firms, and is listed as a service of this company to provide context to the area in which the company operates; thus is in compliance of WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Linked to other articles for specific consulting services. Deleted sentence describing launch of OpenLeads, as source was regurgitated press release.

Revised research sections as well, to include only necessary research numbers important for the development of further articles in digital advertising.

In regards to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Web_article_detailing_Tony_Ahn's_editing_process easily plant articles into the press, this particular company is not a PR or marketing agency, they are a technology strategy group that serves the Marketing/Advertising industry. Wikipedia currently lacks needed information around programmatic advertising, and the research and work this company facilitates in the advertising space is necessary for providing context for future articles that discuss growth of automation in advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmguru87 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... its not a PR company, it just works closely with the Marketing/Advertising industry... thats not the same thing at all when it comes to opportunity to plant stories in these sources (sarcasm).

Even aside from that, looking at the sources we find:

[1] is clearly not a reliable source, and is a press release type source. The article is basically an advertisement for a bunch of companies pretending to be news.

[2] does not mention the company, also not a reliable source.

[3] press release/interview with the company. Not independent of the subject, so cannot contribute to notability. Also not a reliable source.

[4] only a brief mention. Also not a reliable source per THIS and THIS where they offer "On-site sponsored content/native advertising"

[5] same source as previous, brief mention and not reliable source.

[6] brief mention (does not contribute to notability). Not a reliable source per THIS.

[7] a report prepared by Prohaska Consulting, obviously not independent.

[8] brief mention AND not a reliable source (are we seeing a trend yet?)

[9] Same source as the first one, also the article isn't about Prohaska Consulting and just talks about a report they made.

[10] brief mention and not reliable per THIS and THIS.

TL;DR: Literally nothing here points toward meeting notability (see the golden rule). We require significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This doesn't have that. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, conflating the PR industry with the advertising technology industry shows that you don't have substantial knowledge of this space, and thus the need for more wikipedia content that reflects an in-depth knowledge of the industry is strong.

Happy to address these to help those unfamiliar with these publications understand how/why they meet notability standards WP:GOLDENRULE.

[11] I don't understand how this could possibly viewed as a press release. This is a story on the role of consulting firms in the advertising technology space. AdExchanger is a well known neutral trade publication. It clearly meets wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, having strong editorial standards and a chief editor who oversees all content published see WP:RS; and has frequently been used as a reputable source in articles including Sell-side platform Pubmatic and Smaato.

[12] You are correct, does not mention company. This source provides context to the 1-year hiatus the company underwent during the founder's short time at the New York Times.

[13] this is clearly an interview, not a press release. I'm not sure you understand what exactly a press release is, and how it differs from an interview; please see Press Release.

[14] this . Also, while Digiday offers sponsored content as do many other reputable publishers (Including WSJ, New York Times, and the Washington Post), this particular article is not marked as sponsored. For example, this [15] is how Digiday formats articles that are sponsored. When posts are sponsored, they are clearly identified as such both on the page, and within the URL; this particular source referencing Prohaska Consulting is not labeled sponsored, either in the post itself or URL. The source also proves to be relevant and substantial, providing context to the research published by Prohaska Consulting. Concluding, the source proves to be Significant, reliable, and independent of Prohaska Consulting, fitting within the standards of WP:GOLDENRULE.

[16] again, same situation as above. Source validates itself with three principles of WP:GOLDENRULE.

[17] upon further review is not relevant and should be removed.

[18] while this is a brief mention, it independently validates the importance of the industry research listed in this section.

— Dmguru87 ^{(or here)} 11:24, 16 January 2018 (CST)

[19]As for source number 1, Prohaska Consulting's part in that article has clearly been solicited from the company as it is far too promotional in tone to have been created independently. The constant quotes throughout that article indicate that Prohaska Consulting had a significant hand in determining the content of the article, and it reads like an advert/interview mashup.

[20] Interviews are not independent, so they don't count for notability per WP:42, and are almost always solicited by the subject.

Digiday may be a reliable source if they clearly mark their sponsored content, but neither of the sources from Digiday are significant coverage of Prohaska Consulting (the company itself), they just briefly mention a study that Prohaska Consulting did and discuss trends in the industry. This is not 'significant coverage' of the company itself per WP:GOLDENRULE at all, so these sources do not count for determining notability.

While a source might be suitable for inclusion within an article to support some fact or another, that does not mean it contributes to notability as a reference. Sources that contribute to notability must be high quality in all three of the areas of 'significant coverage', 'reliable source', and 'independent source'. None of these sources meet all three criteria. Additionally, meeting notability requires multiple sources like this, independent from one another. I'm just not seeing that here sorry. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My intent for creating an article for the company was to supply industry context to the firm for the research it commissioned. Since this primary issue seems to be establishing notability for the company, perhaps the research stats should be moved to other articles? For instance, sub-heading Digital Advertising could be merged into Online advertising? --Dmguru87 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sounds like it could work. Note that while articles are required to meet the notability guidelines, content is not. Content must still be reliably sourced, but with the Digiday source, I think you might be alright with a section over at Online advertising. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in the article that suggests any notability. Its a run-of-the-mill consultancy firm that produces its own research (presumably in order to sell more services). None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability which, as has been pointed out above, must be "intellectually independent" ... that is, the references must provide in-depth analysis and/or opinion on the company. None of the references do that. While there may not be much "marketing language" in the article, I note that the article still manages to insert (as references) links to "research" published by this company. I would argue that in the context of the paucity of references in general for this topic, those links could be construed as promotional. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "run-of-the-mill consultancy" is about right. Nothing worth salvaging here; completely non notable. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2018 (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.