Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3E Accounting


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

3E Accounting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

small accounting firm without notability. The refs are PR, as would be expected from the size.  DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Coverage consists of the following:
 * 1) sources where the company (the owner) talks it about itself - this fails WP:ORGIND;
 * 2) descriptions of trivial routine business-as-usual coverage such as increase in employees, new offices opening, and using the organization's personnel as story sources, etc. -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * 3) Wikipedia is not a platform to create articles for free advertising per WP:NOTADVERTISING and Commercial organizations (NCORP). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing in HighBeam either. SeraphWiki (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep 3E Accounting has grown rapidly to a significant industry player with their own homegrown international network with members in more than 54 countries, 86 offices, and 1,300 staff in just six years. The press is far more than regional in Singapore, and dismissing the press used looks to be prejudicial towards sources from outside of America.Tiffanyzhang (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No I'm prejudiced against sources that are promotional puff pieces that are either press releases or based on them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep this Article because
 * 1) removed the sources where the company (the owner) talks it about itself - pass WP:ORGIND;
 * 2) many independent sources include government web site, reputable news publishers, and etc sources. pass WP:CORPDEPTH
 * 3) the article does not has any advertisement per WP:NOTADVERTISING and state fact only with independent source verification.
 * 4) 3E Accounting is a significant industry player worldwide and cover in more than 50 countries. verifiable independently Aiaccount (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No indications of notability, fails GNG. References rely on interviews and quotations from company sources or materials provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 15:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the editors of some publisher have visited their office for verification. It is not solely rely on interviews or quotations from company sources or materials provided by the company as claimed. Example . Aiaccount (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: How do you know they visited their office "for verification"? In any case, this straitstimes.com reference relies exclusively on material provided by the company is based on this press release, therefore failing WP:ORGIND. This todayonline.com reference relies exclusively on an interview with their CEO and is therefore no independent of the subject and also fails WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 16:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Answer: You can see in this straitstimes.com reference and This todayonline.com article, the picture clearly show that the media and the minister have visited their office. this press release is being prepared by 3E Accounting only after these articles are published. Aiaccount (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Very common practice that the company would issue the press release one day later so that the media or newspaper gets their "scoop" first. It doesn't really matter though. There is no independent analysis or opinon in any of the newspaper articles and the articles also regurgitate info and facts provided (or "verified" as you put it) by the company. They are not intellectually independent and fail ORGIND.  HighKing++ 20:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.