Talk:MarketTools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Notability?

I believe that this page might need someone more skilled at CSDs for this. I think that it is notable enough (450 employees), but as I have never heard of them, I think an admin should look at this. Anybody else have opinions? - Hairchrm 05:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the sort of company that you don't read about in a local newspaper, but is (relatively) well-known in industry. I used this review as a reference because the site appears to be fairly credible and authoritative in the marketing industry, and the depth of coverage is fairly strong, but I can look for more if you want - with lots of internet attention there are probably some good ones out there. Personally I'm in favor of allowing particularly large numbers of employees, Google hits (where it's clear that many of the results are pertinent to the subject), etc. to satisfy notability, but I realize that other editors differ. It may also be worth noting that Zoomerang.com, a site owned by MarketTools, went through an AfD as Keep. (I realize this doesn't inherently guarantee notability for the parent company, but still I think it supports the company's notability.) — xDanielx T/C 06:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I added some more references which I think do a decent job of establishing notability through third-party coverage. — xDanielx T/C 06:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Citation Problem with Zoomerang

Not sure why the E-Myth Newsletter link is included. It is ref'd from "Zoomerang was designed to offer survey software as a service for businesses conducting consumer, competitor, and customer satisfaction surveys." but it isn't clear from the quote why a Biography of the corporate officers (in another company?) is on-topic.

Also, half of the links can't be verified because they are from print media. TOJMatt 22:58 24 December (UTC)

Why are you posting here instead of Talk:Zoomerang.com? There's no E-Myth reference here, and none of the sources are print media. (As an aside, print media references are generally accepted as roughly equal to online ones in terms of their appropriateness for Wikipedia articles, despite being harder to track down.) — xDanielx T/C\R 09:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Content with MarketTools

There isn't any content in this article. Certainly it isn't clear from the single paragraph why this meets the Wiki Notability guidelines. TOJMatt 22:58 24 December (UTC)

Matt, notability guidelines are just that: guidelines. Companies with close to 500 people do tend to be notable, whether they've rescued cats from trees or not. :-) (Not that I agree the sources fail to establish notability; I think they do a decent enough job already, but regardless....) — xDanielx T/C\R 09:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

I think either this article needs to be merged with Zoomerang.com, or Zoomerang.com needs to be merged with it. Zoomerang apparently is MarketTools most visible product, and it doesn't make sense to have separate articles for them. Crypticfirefly 01:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still reluctant to support merging. MarketTools also owns zTelligence -- not sure what the differences are exactly, but it's a separate service. The MarketTools article is rather small, but what utility is does have (or may have in the future) would be mostly diminished by forcing it into the Zoomerang.com article. I'd be more comfortable merging Zoomerang into MarketTools, but that would bring structural disadvantages (no infobox, no "see also", no external links, no categorization) onto an article that is worthy of its own page. — xDanielx T/C 08:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The MarketTools article is *really* small, and I don't think it meets the Wiki Notability guidelines. Support expanding the content or deletion. TOJMatt 22:58 24 December (UTC)

My hope is that someone more knowledgeable will come and expand the article eventually. I can't say I'm surprised that it's taking a while -- they're not a very publicized company (in a broad sense), so there's only so much the average Wikipedian can do in the way of expansion. Still, I think the article is serviceable enough as is; at least it gives a reasonable overview and some general facts. — xDanielx T/C\R 09:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)