Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control Risks Group

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. John254 00:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Control Risks Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article about a security company. Cites several sources, but they don't really discuss the company itself -- they are mostly quotes of company officers, or mentions that the company has security people in this or that country. I don't think the subject has been shown to be notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a notable company, very much a leader in its field of operation. Multiple coverage in reliable third party sources Google news archives, Google books and Google scholar. RMHED (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When I started reading this article, I wondered if it was going to turn into an advertising puff for some company. But the more I read, and the more links I followed up from it, the more convinced I became that this company is involved in some pretty unique work. It's obviously much more than simply "a security company" - this company advises governments. And to say that they have people in "this or that country" is a serious down-playing of their work, when in fact they've been involved in Iraq and other similarly controversial and dangerous locations of major interest. The next thing I checked was the history page and it seems quite a healthy number of editors have contributed, so it didn't look like it was an article which was simply put together by one person with a vested interest. This company might not be "famous" to the average person in the street but it is obviously one of the behind-the-scenes players in high-level situations of note in the world. I would contend that makes it notable. I would definitely concede that the citations and references could do with wikifying, but would be happy to take on that job. As a result of reading the article, I got very interested in this company, and would relish the chance to do some research to improve it. (So call me weird, but I like to know what's really going on in the world!) Austin46 (talk) 16:20, 20 June 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.