Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Hundred Monkeys (2nd nomination)
No. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. In order for a reference to meet the criteria, it must be "intellectually independent" and ideally containing some in-depth information on the company. It should not be based on company announcements or quotations from company personnel as these are not only PRIMARY sources, but the resultant articles are not considered intellectually independent. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/us/education-technology-companies-play-the-name-game.html?_r=0 This New York Times reference you point to above is based on an interview with Altman with no in-depth information on the company and therefore fails  and/or . http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/magazine/how-to-invent-a-brand-name.html This NYT reference relies on an affiliated source (a customer) and quotations from Altman with no in-depth information on the company and similarly fails because it is not intellectually independent, and fails  and/or . I cannot access the Salon reference (404 error). The http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/10/how_companies_name_their_products_and_brands_99_invisible_by_roman_mars.html slate.com reference is from a blog and therefore fails as blogs are not considered reliable sources. Even if it was considered reliable, it also fails because is relies on interviews with and information recived from Altman (again) and while it discussed some of the methodology (according to Altman) it contains no in-depth information on the actual company. The article fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The https://www.fastcompany.com/41214/how-make-name-yourself fastcompany.com reference suffers from the exact same issues as all the others. It is not intellectually independent as it relies exclusively on interviews with Altman with no independent opinion or analysis and has no in-depth information on the company. It fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/2190484.stm The BBC article fails ... same reasons ... that Altman guy just loves being interviewed. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28505533/ns/business-small_business/t/how-play-rebranding-game/ The nbcnews article ... yup, you've seen the pattern by now! Fails, Altman at it again. No in-depth info, etc. Finally, https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/technology/on-the-internet-all-the-good-company-names-are-taken/article17417167/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com& the theglobeademail.com reference same old failings although at least we can see a photo of Altman this time. The bottom line is that no, finding mentions of this company in various publications is not enough. The references themselves must be intellectually independent and these one are clearly not
— User:HighKing, 11:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND (Wikipedia:Notability)