Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Executive Search Consultants


 * 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. North America1000 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Association of Executive Search Consultants

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

looks very like paid advertorial with multiple links to the AESC and related web sites embedded in the text. References are directory entries and primary sources. Delete as an advert Fiddle   Faddle  21:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This has been lurking here for far too long. It is no better than it was when I slapped some tags on it in 2011 and that is not good enough. I have looked in its history to see if it got better before backsliding again and don't think that it did. In fact it has been a whole lot worse. There is some news coverage but even if the subject is eligible for an article this article is no good. I am not sure how much of it is the work of editors with a COI but I am pretty sure that at least some if it is and the overall impression is promotional. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as I saw this earlier but chose to finally comment now; there's simply nothing to suggest better and it's worth noting this was actually tagged for speedy shortly after starting and was apparently wanted for deletion again in December 2013 when Timtrent removed the user's "request". SwisterTwister   talk  07:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I make no apology for CSD removal at that time. There was hope of improvement, and I viewed CSD as an imperfect avenue then. The time has now come to discuss it and reach consensus. Fiddle   Faddle  09:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, appears to be article spam by single-purpose account with little to no encyclopedic value. Citobun (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Statitics provided at  Revision history statistics challenge the assumption the assumption that the article is a :
 * Edits total 73
 * Different users 40
 * Edits per user 1.83 Ottawahitech (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
 * Delete WP:ADVERT, and it seems like most of the edits to the article were by SPAs.  Jim Car  ter  17:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promotional article that doesn't demonstrate notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2015 (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.