Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forrester Research

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 keep‎. asilvering (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forrester Research

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unable to find significant coverage from independent reliable sources anywhere. The sourcing provided in the article also is only "contact us". Completely unreferenced from a secondary source standpoint. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found except the company's own publications and routine directory/PR sites like ZDNet and Crunchbase. Fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Forrester is a well known technology research company that has a been around for decades. They publish research that is heavily referenced by the tech industry. I went to what links here and found about 220 articles either mentioning Forrester's research reports and/or quoting their analysts. By clicking on the articles, you can find some independent coverage: [1][2][3][4]. They are probably best known for the Forrester Wave, which is described here. Quote: For some, a successful inclusion in a Forrester Wave can lead to increased credibility, market recognition, and potential business opportunities. Here's a more recent example of how the media integrates Forrester's research into their reporting. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A classic case where my first reaction is "But it's notable!" and then I see the current poor state of an article. It has been significantly degraded since this version, with a sequence of COI edits and their reversion. Reverting to that version would be better - however, it too is rather deficient in demonstrating notability. AllyD (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don’t see any evidence of notability.

~~User:Curmchunt (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Forrester is a well known name in technology, sales and Marketing research. I found 112 related articles on JSTOR. Electroshocks (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage about the company's business activities over the years. Just a handful of articles: [5] [6] [7][8] [9] [10] Astaire (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2025 (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.