Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analysis Group (2nd nomination)
- 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. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Analysis Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Completing nom for User:BowChickaNeowNeow, who relisted discussion from 2006. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, and the directory listing which have been cited are excluded as such.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. You guys are killing me with all these deletion nominations of obviously notable companies. Business Week a reliable source I would think (though for good measure I added a second reference, a New York Sun article). Business Week devoted an entire article, not a directory listing, to this firm. A 400+ employee financial consulting firm is almost guaranteed to be notable, although litigation support isn't a glamorous or interesting field so the interest level and article count is going to be smaller than for similarly-sized consulting firms in other fields. Wikidemo (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Please explain why a profile in Business Week is not considered a reliable source. As noted above, Business Week devoted an entire article, not a directory listing, to this firm. Additionally, there is a full profile of this firm on Vault.com, which is another reliable secondary source. This is a notable company with more than 400 employees. If Business Week and Vault.com are not considered legitimate secondary references, please explain specifically which references WOULD be considered legitimate. rgord01 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Wikidemo and rgord01 - this firm is notable. It is unclear to me why Business Week, New York Sun and Vault have been acknowledged as unreliable sources. Tmysko —Preceding comment was added at 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If you check the resources listed by Analysis Group's competitors, you will see that they are similar. Yet none of these other companies' profiles has been tagged for deletion. Cornerstone references the San Jose Business Journal, Vault.com, and its own website. LECG references its own 10-K filing from 2005. And NERA references Vault.com. rgord01 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.11.10 (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The IP address of this user upon using nslookup resolves to "Analysis_Group.demarc.cogentco.com". I suggest the closer bears in this in mind -Halo (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Grudgingly weak keep - They seem to just about have enough press and their large turnover makes them notable - this is in spite of their above spamming/astroturfing and the fact the current article is pretty damn awful. -Halo (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you for your comments. I work for Analysis Group and have updated the article numerous times in attempts to respond to tags and comply with Wikipedia guidlines. When the article was fuller, it attracted comments that it read like an advertisement. I requested assistance through what I thought were the proper channels, but never received any replies. Regarding my comments above, they were not intended to be spam. I was under the impression that this forum was the place to state legitimate reasons for keeping the posting, and that's what I thought I was doing. I would appreciate any assistance you could offer me to ensure that this article meets guidelines and stays posted. -rgord01 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.11.10 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -I'm sorry, but you're clearly violating WP:COI by contributing to the article. In fact, a look at the article's history since June of 2007 shows that you or another Analysis Group employee has been contributing to the article on a regular basis. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you for your comments. I work for Analysis Group and have updated the article numerous times in attempts to respond to tags and comply with Wikipedia guidlines. When the article was fuller, it attracted comments that it read like an advertisement. I requested assistance through what I thought were the proper channels, but never received any replies. Regarding my comments above, they were not intended to be spam. I was under the impression that this forum was the place to state legitimate reasons for keeping the posting, and that's what I thought I was doing. I would appreciate any assistance you could offer me to ensure that this article meets guidelines and stays posted. -rgord01 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.11.10 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2008 (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.