Talk:Nemertes Research

Justification for maintaining this page

Hi, I have created this page in response to extensive media coverage on Nemertes Research and our recent report on Internet infrastructure. Included in the wikipedia page is a link to a recent Times UK article. Nemertes was also featured recently on CNBC, Fox Business News Network, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and several other outlets in relation to our Internet infrastructure study.

Wikipedia guidelines : An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.

Here is a listing of recent coverage of Nemertes Research in mainstream media:

CNBC: http://www.nemertes.com/live_events/nemertes_cnbc_cyberspace_running_out_capacity

USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2007-11-18-slow-internet_N.htm

Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/suckered-by-astroturf_b_73483.html

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/24/AR2007112400807.html

new York Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E4D6173CF930A35751C1A9619C8B63

I believe that these examples demonstrate that Nemertes Research is notable and should be included in Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imlazar (talk • contribs) 16:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

status

As reviewing admin, I figured out how to do this properly. These articles actually speak primarily to the notability of the specific report, but one of them at least had a usable quote about the firm. DGG (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

=

Removed "while others classify it among "unscrupulous think tanks"."

The link provided didn't specifically refer to Nemertes as an unscrupulus think tank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.211.190 (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The link provided names Nemertes specifically as an example of the astroturf. Anyway, I changed the wording a bit to prevent vandals making excuses.--Eleman (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

References

==

Updated on 10/7/2010 - The CNBC story mis-quoted the research, I've replaced it with a link to the actual research report and FAQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imlazar (talk • contribs) 16:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much screams AfD to me

So ... another article about an insignificant company. (See edit note below.) What we seem to have here is a WP article created by the "VP and Services Director" of a company, who then creates a Talk post setting out what he claims is the justification for the article existing. There are, we are breathlessly informed, 5 articles in major media outlets talking about Nemertes.

The first has since been switched out, by the OPer, and is now the acronym CNBC in front of a link to an article written by Nemertes, on Nemertes' own web site. (Oh, have you no shame, OPer?)

The 2nd and 4th are articles that regurgitate the research that the first now links to.

The 3rd is an article in the Huff n Puff about how the 2nd look like idiots for citing the first.

The 5th is is apparently to the NY Times, but returned "not found".

Good start. So, to the article itself. Very little actual info about Nemertes. No indication of staff numbers, resources, history, capitalisation, or ... well, anything. A two sentence leader, the 2nd part of which cites the NY Times as calling the company: "a respected American think-tank". Nice. Want to see the article? It's subscription only, and I'm not going to. But a bit of shuffling got me close enough to see that it's apparently the same "not found" article used in the Talk post, which seems to cite the egregiously wrong research paper that is the basis of the only bout of media notability that this company has ever enjoyed. Then a list of "Research Focus Areas", unjustified and meaningless, but a nice list.

The rest of the references ... are a crock.

2 is the same Huff n Puff article discussed above. This time the text being supported by the citation is nicely ambiguous.It could have been the Huff being nice to the company instead of ... well, you read the Huff article.

3 and 4 are archived essays by Nemertes.

6 and 7 are the same articles discussed earlier as ref's #3 and 4 in the Talk post, the Huff saying how dumb USA Today are for citing Nemertes, and the other also regurgitating it.

8 is that NY Times article that is not found, again.

9 is an article that basically re-does what the Huff did.

10 is an opinion piece by the the "Founder and CEO" of Nemertes, and has no reason to be in the refs at all.

So it looks like there's lots of stuff going on with refs, but there's only about 5 going around in a very small circle, and saying nothing of substance about Nermetes.

If the article is to exist at all, on the basis of it's sources it should say something like "Once upon a time a company made a dumb prediction, which was wrong, but a couple of media outlets picked it up, and another couple laughed at the first couple. The End." But that's not really what WP is for. So I'd rather see an AfD discussion. Wayne 06:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC) *Edit: I have deleted some unwarranted harsh description here and replaced it with more neutral terms. (Apparently I was in a really bad mood when I wrote the first version.) I would have used 'strikethrough' but it doesn't seem to be working.Wayne 02:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)