Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiman Consulting


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Caiman Consulting

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

1) Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) 2) One non-independent source 3) Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 11:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello! We believe our company is notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, and would love advice on how to improve the article in order to avoid deletion. I'm not sure I understand point #1, since the article is written in a neutral POV manner and doesn't contain any language that I would consider "Advertising". Is there a way we could rephrase the article to avoid this problem? Point #2 is fair - I just added one additional independent source (Consulting Magazine, the #1 US trade publication in our industry) and we are working on finding more. Point #3 I think is really the same as Point #2, since I couldn't find anything in WP:CORP guidelines that would disqualify us except for a possible lack of independent sources. Thanks! TimCrockett (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read some or all of the following: Arguments to make in deletion discussions, Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, Notability, Notability (organizations and companies), Why was the page I created deleted?, and WP:COI. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The only reason to keep this article is a 2008's Best Small Firms to Work For award. The problem is that it's only the company's press release. Where is the third party coverage which tells us that this award was a big deal? And even if this one award were kind of a big deal, we've got no other reason to keep the article. Lacks substantial and sustained coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This might be of interest.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 20:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment "Caiman offers a diverse array of consulting services to companies such as Microsoft, Real Networks, and Boeing." That has an apparent advertising tone. The section on "Service Offerings" should go. If you want to have a chance for the article to be kept, delete "Service Offerings".  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 20:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the first paragraph to sound less like advertising. I can't agree with you about the Service Offerings section. Since we're a services company, this is a list of what we sell, similar to a list of products for a manufacturing company. It's core information and taking it out would be like having a page about a restaurant chain without listing what type of food they offer.TimCrockett (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I added links to Consulting Magazine and also an article in Harvard Business Review that talks about us fairly extensively (although that part is frustratingly behind a paywall). I will try to come up with a rewrite about our clients and service offerings that doesn't have an advertising tone. It's tough to describe who we are and what we do in an NPOV - frankly almost every business-related page on Wikipedia seems to have similar tone to ours when discussing the company's products and customers. Thanks for the guidance.TimCrockett (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding comparison with other company articles, see WP:OSE. There are thousands of pages on Wikipedia that suck; having one fewer of them is a small step forward. If you want examples of what a company article should look like, it's better to stick with Featured Articles, such as Fa. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I added one more external link (from Inc Magazine). TimCrockett (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Wikipedia has so many rules; it's confusing and hard to learn overnight. Keep in mind, your company is likely to thrive very well indeed without a Wikipedia article -- thousands of them do. Anyway, you should know that everybody only gets to !vote only once, so multiple "keeps" only muddies the waters, and kind of makes you look bad. I'd erase the extra ones. Even your one "keep" doesn't really count, since it's there's a conflict of interest -- see WP:AVOIDCOI. The core issue is can you convince other editors to keep it, and that requires that Caiman Consulting has been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", per Notability (organizations and companies). If the article is bad, it can be fixed in time without deleting the article. But the coverage either exists or it doesn't. A 44-word, unsigned profile in Inc. with some company stats, but no actual journalistic reporting, is not significant coverage. It's routine coverage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for setting me straight on the voting thing. I didn't realize it was a voting mechanism; I thought we were just labeling our arguments for clarity. At any rate I changed it to Comment, and I appreciate the guidance. Ultimately I know that my company doesn't need a Wikipedia article to thrive, and I'm not here to try to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform (for the record, I'm not a marketing person nor am I here at the behest of my company's management). I'm here because I think my company is significant and notable and an emerging key player in business on the West Coast. I would agree that the Inc profile isn't impressive, but the Harvard Business Review article is certainly an example of the kind of significant coverage talked about in WP:Notability. Whether that's enough by itself to save the article is up to you and other esteemed editors, but I believe we have a lot more coverage coming our way and if you choose to delete the article it will eventually be resurrected as Caiman's media coverage begins to catch up with its economic importance. Thanks for your consideration and thoughtful comments.TimCrockett (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet the notability criteria for a standalone article at WP:FIRM. I could find absolutely no independent coverage at Google News Archive, just press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW responding to TimCrocket's comment that the company is "emerging": this may be an example of WP:TOOSOON in that the company just hasn't achieved notability YET. Wikipedia is not a WP:Crystal ball, we can't predict whether a person or company is going to be notable later. In a few years if the firm gets significant notice by major outside third parties, it might be ready for an article then. But it isn't now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Qualifies for speedy deletion IMO: this is another business that offers business and IT consulting services to businesses, universities, and public sector institutions advertising on Wikipedia.  If they've done anything at all that has the lasting interest needed for an encyclopedia article, I don't see it in the current text.  Instead, what we have here is a repetition of the vague and monotonous horsepuckey found in most spam articles:  Caiman’s services focus on: Program and Project Management System Training and Deployment Product Management    Process Analysis and Optimization Creative Services  This vague and meaningless menu simply does not establish a minimal claim to encyclopedic importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 17 May 2012 (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.