Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statistical consultant

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical consultant

Non-notable and non-encyclopedic topic - do we need an article on every possible type of consultant? —G716 <^T·_C> 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 12:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep For any number of reasons. First, the article appears to meet WP:Verify, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV policies (It is clearly a legitimate type of consultanting with lots of practioners and plenty of professional journal coverage ) and no other specific guideline was invoked arguing for deletion. The veiled argument that do we need an article on every possible type of consultant? is clearly POV and is not a legitimate deletion argument! I would suspect that if I suggested Do we need an article on every possible type of musician? in WP (of which there probably is), I would get laughed out of town. Inclusion of articles in WP ought to be based on WP:Verify, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV policies, not someone's feeling that something shouldn't be included.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider move to Statistical consulting. The (print and online) Encyclopedia of Biostatistics (Wiley, 2005) has an article on Statistical Consulting, which suggests the topic is encyclopedic, while the current references to entire books on the topic support notability — though note that three of the four have "consulting" in their title rather than "consultant". Qwfp (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I apologise if my argument appeared 'veiled'; I tried to be explicit. Let me try again. I suggest that this article is deleted because the topic in not WP:NOTE. Nor are any of the following: consultant pharmacist, creative consultant, educational consultant, elevator consultant, employment consultant, foreclosure consultant, lactation consultant, legal nurse consultant, loss control consultant, magic consultant, media consultant, process consultant, theatre consultant, or consultant (medicine), or, for that matter, any of the scores of other types of consultant for which there is no Wikipedia article. Of course, this is only my POV, as is pretty much everything I think. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 19:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:NOTE based on books from respected publishers serving this profession. This is not arbitrary cross-categorization. I endorse moving to Statistical consulting. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly move to statistical consulting. Asking whether we need an article for every kind of consultant is ridiculous. Julius Caesar was a person. Should we have an article about every person? No. So we need to delete Julius Caesar. How do we explain the existence of a number of books devoted to statistical consulting if it's not notable? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I do not oppose the name change to Statistical consulting, I do think the whole consulting theme needs some thought. Currently there are 14 Consultant articles on a Consultant (disambiguation) page and eleven (11) on a Consulting disambiguation page. I think the overall subject needs a bit of consistency.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I see your point about lack of clarity/consistency in the distinction, especially after looking at Category:Consulting and its subcategories. Also Consultant is a Start-Class article in need of help. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search of google books shows numerous published books (745) that use the term, the oldest I saw was from 1947. There is at least one dedicated entirely to the career. (BTW, there is also enough published material to make Lactation consultant notable.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:32, 17 September 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.