Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ImportGenius

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 no consensus‎. After being relisted three times and being here at AFD for 28 days, there's no clear consensus either way for this article. Defaulting to no conensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ImportGenius

[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)

Does not meet WP:NCORP, coverage in independent RS is essentially limited to statements of statements of attribution (the Wired article has a paragraph of description that could charitably be considered to begin a case for NCORP, but does not establish it on its own). The assembled bibliography suggests that ImportGenius is likely a reliable source on WP:USEBYOTHERS grounds, but does not establish notability. I was not able to find superior coverage searching online and Google Scholar. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Economics. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a related essay at Wikipedia:Notability of reliable sources. It notes that (as of a couple years ago) "There are no special notability criteria for reliable sources proposed at this time.", but also notes it might be worth adding at some point (doesn't seem within scope for this AfD aside from IAR which I don't feel is appropriate here). —siro χ o 02:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There does seem to be a decent split of reputable sources referring to it as "Import Genius" rather than "ImportGenius" despite their own website using ImportGenius. So I'd advise looking for sources under both aliases if you're seeking notable coverage - for instance the embedded NYT search above doesn't show this article due to the article referring to the organization as Import Genius:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/23/business/economy/china-russia-ammunition.html (Also in print - June 26, 2023, Section B, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: China Sent Gunpowder To Russia)

I think that coverage like this wherein the piece focuses solely on data from Import Genius constitutes significant coverage by a reliable source, there's an extensive quote, clear attribution to ImportGenius and the subject matter itself - lethal aid to Russia from China in the Russo-Ukrainian War is pretty topical at the moment. Finbee (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete In many of sources, the discussion is around the data that was obtained through ImportGenius, not the company itself. I removed some contents I believed to be undue here. It was public information about the testimony made by the article subject with regard to a news story. If the news story covered in depth about a public testimony made by IG, citing the story and the testimony referenced is reasonable, however the subject testifying about something in the news doesn't add to the subject's notability and the inclusion isn't necessarily due. Graywalls (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment with no !vote... So, Google scholar has a source (working paper link, info about cited published version), that gives a bit more coverage than just referencing it as the source of data.
All information is collected from the electronic bills of lading filed by the shipper. Import Genius receives this information via a U.S. customs feed... Import Genius data are highly disaggregated, but do not include freight cost or value information... It is not possible to develop a product-specific measure of supply chain uncertainty. Import Genius reports only product descriptions. Without commodity codes, it is difficult to match products in the Imports of Merchandise data... Imports of Merchandise reports the country of origin for each import based on the production location. Import Genius reports the country where the product was loaded on the vessel. These locations may not coincide.

I'm honestly not sure if this qualifies as WP:CORPDEPTH or not. It seems to be more about Import Data's product (the data) rather than the company. Either way I'm not sure we would have enough for NCORP yet. This is still a hard call. —siro χ o 07:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've done a thorough search through Google News, and all but a few rise above passing mentions. It gets a lot of hits because it's cited a ton (incl the NYT) as a source for investigations. Beside the one in-depth on-topic article by TechCrunch, it's not enough to give depth to the article. It was founded by brothers and scooped the iPhone 3G; DW calls it "the world's leading information service for the import-export industry"; they sued over airplane manifests, but lost. Very little, and not enough to combine to show notability. (also, lol @ this) SWinxy (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per sources provided, otherwise merge as a new L4 section under Trade data#Commercial Sources. Overall I think it's fair to say we are somewhat on the bubble as far as CORPDEPTH and its friends; we have the TechCrunch article and occasional nontrivial but not "deep" analysis of the pros and cons of ImportGenius data in scholarly and semi-scholarly sources like those linked above. I also came across this case study on UXmatters, a source that has some indicia of reliability (e.g. disclosed editorial team, fairly widely cited on Wikipedia). (I don't think it's really possible to meaningfully separate company from product here, but if we do, I'd have no objection to refocusing this article on the data rather than the company.) Given that we are somewhere very near the NCORP threshold, in the spirit of applying the guidelines flexibly in accordance with our encyclopedic purpose, I think it is worth considering factors such as ImportGenius's status as a source widely cited in reliable sources and of course the fact that the existing coverage appears to be sufficient to meet the stated purpose of WP:CORPDEPTH (namely to make[] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization). Overall I think the balance weighs in favor of inclusion here. That said, many sources discuss ImportGenius alongside other sources of trade data like UN Comtrade and it might make the most sense for us to follow suit. -- Visviva (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except that they're not really a data provider. They're like the Grubhub of data. Many of sources briefly mention where they got the data, then they go right into the data (like saying how they got food through Grubhub, then go right onto talking about the food in depth, but not talk about Grubhub in depth) Graywalls (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trade data per Visviva. Best ATD we have right now, and I don't think there's a need to delete history on this. —siro χ o 09:19, 26 July 2023 (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.