Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AeM 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 Delete - Yomangani talk 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

AeM Group
I speedy deleted this before, it was recreated and tagged for speedy again, and Enochlau untagged it this time. Far be it from me to get into a wheel war, but I still think its intention is to be an ad and it does not satisfy WP:CORP. Chick Bowen 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Consulting company with several hundred consultants, like tens of thousands of others. There are notable consulting companies, like McKinsey or Accenture. This isn't one. (And yes, it's an ad.) Fan-1967 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a directory listing with no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory.  OfficeGirl 00:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Xdenizen 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I have updated the facts component of this article, providing notabilty and referencing published works. --paulprout
 * Registered editor abt 2.5 days, 2 dozen edits, of which only the last is not focused away from himself and this company. Thus, IIRC, this "Keep" is a Comment, not a vote. Would someone who's checked that policy more recently plz change it (and sign it in small type as modified)? --Jerzy•t 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you're referring to the line at WP:DGFA (guideline, not policy) that says ""bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." There's no need to do anything other than point it out, as you've done, and the closing admin will determine consensus accordingly.  Chick Bowen 23:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising, which this clearly is. --scope_creep 02:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy was probably justified, IMO, until a familiar editor (34 months & 13K edits) made it controversial by taking exception to that view. --Jerzy•t 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete spam, one of hundreds of Australian consulting firms no more notable than the next. --Steve 04:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. N-n, so that none of its content is worth saving even if PP has something non-promotional to add. --Jerzy•t 15:53, 9 November 2006 (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.