Talk:Emarketer

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 15 December 2012 by reviewer ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs).

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 December 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Untitled

References are a little messy, took me a while to sort through them all. They should be modeled after ref* #11's format.

Fixed I think!? Pol430 talk to me 16:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Pol430: Why are those two templates at the top of the page? I had to create the article for a class assignment, not sure how that qualifies as a "close connection."Colweiss (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Colton[reply]

Those templates were added on the basis of edits made by User:Andylee3000, not you. Pol430 talk to me 16:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Pol430: Sorry for the delay in response, I was on winter break. I'm going to remove the first template because I think it is redundant to mention neutrality concerns twice. The neutrality in the "History" section, particularly, the 1999 date is definitely questionable. I'll make some edits, please share any thoughts. I'll be more timely in my response since I have to monitor the page for class until the end of the semester.Thanks! Colweiss (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Colton[reply]

Also, how do I edit reference #15 so that when you click on the article name it redirects the reader to the cited article?Colweiss (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Colton : Fixed[reply]

I think the POV is now neutral. Unless there is an additional concern I'll remove the template.Colweiss (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Colton[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on EMarketer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

I'm really not certain that this company passes WP:GNG. The sources in this article so far are very weak, as per my source assessment table below. I've not nominated it for deletion (yet!) because I've not spent time to look for other sources that might be available, but if someone else wants to take it to WP:AFD I certainly won't object.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/google-is-set-to-topple-facebook-as-leader-in-display-ads/			This is barely more than a name drop, and reporting what eMarketer has said.	✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2012/01/19/online-ad-revenues-to-pass-print-in-2012/	Mostly just a repost of a report the company issued.	WP:FORBESCON	Little to no information about the company themselves	✘ No
http://www.library.hbs.edu/go/emarketer.html	Link to the company's product			✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emarketer-m-a-axel-sprngr-idUSKCN0YW0RE/	? Reads like a press release, but is cited to a journalist/editor		Information about a takeover bid only, nothing substatial.	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20130204215737/http://venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/emarketer-inc		Dead link, but Wayback makes it look like it was entirely user-submitted data		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20110417021139/http://ad-tech.blogs.imediaconnection.com/2011/04/12/emarketer-ceo-geoff-ramsey-receives-industry-achievement-award/			Not significant coverage, but probably the best coverage of anything here.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

stwalkerster (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move for Article Title Adjustment

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Specific text to be added or removed: TextDiff |1=eMarketer |2=EMARKETER
Reason for the change: eMarketer has changed to EMARKETER
References supporting change: https://www.emarketer.com/

DanaRHill (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is moot since user:DanaRHill seemed to have tired of waiting, but see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks: choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner Superboilles (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]