Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billiter Partners


 * 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. The consensus is that there was insufficient coverage by reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Billiter Partners

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:CORP. No significant coverage by third party sources. Cntras (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.


 * Delete. Another business intelligence and investigations firm advertising on Wikipedia.  No evidence of any significant effect on history, culture, or technology of the sort that leads to long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Previously worked for this firm as well as other business intelligence firms and have added to the article. There should be articles on these companies as a means of monitoring them and scrutinise their activities as wikipedia is a resources used by many to quickly examine a company. These firms are hugely influential in the US and UK and I am amazed for example that there is no article on Risk Advisory Group which is another significant firm in this sector. Just because the firm is not commented on in the mainstream media doesn't mean the company isn't notable. Everyone in the legal and compliance field know of Billiter. These BI companies are very good at staying out of the media or ensuring that they have only positive coverage, after all that is what they do for their clients. If the decision is to delete then the articles for Control Risks Group, Hakluyt & Company and Eurasia Group should also be deleted as these are blatant advertising and containing only positive new stories and no balance. I would suggest that instead of deletion all articles are edited - I am happy to spend time doing this but don't want to waste time if the decision is that they be deleted anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cclaw (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)  {{SPA}Cclaw}}


 * Delete - I didn't see any notable third-party mentions or news coverage results on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister   talk  05:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. If the company has "been very good at staying out the media" then they will also stay out of Wikipedia. We do not decide who is worthy of being talked about or who we think the public "ought" to know about; we only reflect what has been reported on by independent, reliable sources. No coverage = no notability = no article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I work for Billiter Partners in Corporate Communications. The company has not sought a Wikipedia article and would kindly request that the editors delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilliterCorporateComms (talk • contribs) 07:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No significant independent coverage. No assertion of notability in pagespace or during this procedure. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2011 (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.