Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attain (consulting firm)


 * 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 no consensus. Opinion in this one seems to be split down the middle and I find all arguments presented reasonable. The closest thing to a consensus is that the sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH, but since there seem to be people willing to try fleshing the article out, let's leave it here and try again in a while if nothing comes of that. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Attain (consulting firm)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Sources are all highly specialised (WP:AUD) and so do not confer notability. It has not attracted any mainstream coverage. Looks a lot like undisclosed paid editing as well. SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Went looking, found a lot of DC centric coverage, and there seems to be enough notable contract issues that tie to other organizations, I'd like to build it out. Proteinlover (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - we've had five days to save it, and all I see are local or insider coverage, duplicate citations, and a Bloomberg listing. That does not meet significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Found some new sources, that are more regional/national. I takes Bearian's point, although, it's always a pain with businesses b/c their aren't many editors to help, and I do think it's better than where it started. Proteinlover (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete None of the references in the article meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on company announcements (dependent coverage) and they fail WP:ORGIND. Others are mentions-in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria therefore topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Page has plenty of sources that meet WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV including articles in reputable Washington D.C. media outlets. Mememento (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Except none meet WP:ORGIND. If you think they do, put a link here so we can take a look...  HighKing++ 11:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: sourcing does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Beltway bandits; so mostly regional coverage, but the negatives on their gov't contracts seem like they need a bit of building out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneakerheadguy (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was asked to comment. It has a major role in work for multiple agencies of the US government--it is every bit as essential to have articles on firms like this as it is to the official government departments. I added the appropriate links.  DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a rationale that doesn't seem to have any basis in policy. Either there are sources to justify notability or there aren't. Who the company's clients are has no bearing. SmartSE (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The most fundament of all policies is that we are an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should contain material that people might reasonably look for in an encyclopedia. The relevant specific policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE. The notability guideline is one way of showing that, and the usual way, but it's not the only way. Size or dominance, though not a written guideline, has been accepted for organizations in many but of course not all AfDs. WP:N is not policy, and many efforts to elevate it to that status have failed, because we need thef flexibility.  DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, and that's why we have *guidelines* to assist every editor in evaluating notability of various topics. Nowhere in WP:NCORP (the relevant guidelines for organizations/companies) does it even mention that "size or dominance" should even be considered as a criteria. The first line of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE refers editors to the WP:N guideline so guidelines are important - just that they don't trump policy. I'm afraid I do not understand how you are applying policy to support your !vote in response to a question on sources. The policy states "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" which could be interpreted as a direct contradiction of your position. From the same policy, we also have WP:NOTYELLOW which points out that articles are not "simple listings". Anyway, we have disagreed in the past but I can normally understand (and even eventually agree with) the (very good) points you make in relation to scarcity of sources due to the age of some companies, the difficulty of sourcing sources that may exist solely in print or in other languages/countries, etc. I'm just not convinced in the slightest by the argument you've made here.  HighKing++ 17:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume I was mentioned by name because a further comment was wanted.
 * Looking around WP as new articles come in, I notice we have articles on all significant government departments and military units, even though 90% of the time we have only reliable, but not independent sources. This is because we need to give people the information to put world events in context, by providing plain description of the basic background. Companies such as this, doings what they ado,are essentially ousourced government departments. If you really don't understand their importance in the world, you need to do some reading elsewhere than on WP. Generally, we have trouble covering them, because of the lake of even basic reliable sourcing. When we can document them, even to the extent that this article does, we should.
 * Since we make the rules, we say how they are applied. I -- or anyone experienced here -- can   take the detailed wording of policy & guidelines and and, for most  articles,    argue for keep or  delete, interpreting  the wording to get the conclusion I want. It's a game, rather like college debating.   WP has enough divergent rules to make it a complex game, and there are many people here who see these afd discussions as a good place to play it. I spent two years learning how to do it, and after that, got bored with it. Since we can find rules to make a decision on the intuitive basis of what we think WP should be like, that's what I directly aruge for.
 * I started here as an inclusionist, and with the rise of promotionalism, switched to being deletionist in many fields, as the best way to keep out advertising because for promotionalism is more apt to be present for the less notable subjects.   It's no longer necessary to do it this indirect way, because we have advanced to the stage of recognizing promotionalism  for what it is, and directly removing it. I think the arguement for deleting an article  has to show why it would actually harm WP to have it. Including advertising absolutely harms the encyclopedia, because if we not NPOV, we're not an encyclopedia in the first place. Including relatively minor material does not harm, because an encyclopedia can be of wider or narrower coverage and still be a good encyclopedia. Including completely  trivial material  however does, for it gives an impression that we're not serious. If you think this organization is trivial, deletion would be appropriate.  DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation and I believe I understand your position. I would argue that if I (and other editors) were to adopt your position, we would end up arguing over which companies are "essentially outsourced government departments" and which ones are merely promoting themselves as such and (over time) probably end up with something very close to our current guidelines. Apologies - I should probably have asked at your Talk page rather than here but thank you again for responding in detail.  HighKing++ 18:09, 22 July 2019 (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.