Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consula


 * 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. consensus is clear after the relisting  DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Consula

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A small and newly founded consultancy with sub-2 million euros in revenue seems unlikely to be notable. There do not seem to be strong secondary sources available. TheGrappler (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a financial criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are many many other examples of entries which appear to meet the requirements but which are also fairly new micro-businesses. Please ensure that, if there is in fact a financial criteria element, that this is made more clear in the guidance. The secondary sources include mainstream media as well as matters of note relating to the cutting edge nature of the firm. I was not aware that mainstream media was not a sufficient secondary source. There are many many examples of entries which have fewer, less mainstream sources for entries. Please ensure that, if there is in fact a requirement for a specific number of sources and that those sources have to contain a specific density of graded media, that this is made more clear in the guidance. I don't personally see this as being an issue. The entry meets the guidance criteria for objectivity, the entry relates to a business which has achieved notoriety in the UK as referenced, so it seems to me that the issue is less of guidance and more of subjective interpretation and taste. I was under the impression Wikipedia was open to everyone, not restricted to a specified class of pre-approved entries, as appears to be the logical conclusion given the reasons cited for deletion. Please ensure that, if there is in fact a pre-requisite discriminatory criteria element, that this is made more clear in the guidance. Alternatively, if adding additional sources would be welcomed, please confirm and I will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincallan (talk • contribs)
 * There isn't a financial criterion, but it is unusual for very small companies to be notable unless there is something very distinctive about them. (An essay on this subject is at WP:MILL.) From WP:CORP: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". Note that this excludes press releases (even if reprinted in independent media) and articles in which "the company ... talks about itself". The required depth of coverage is extremely difficult for a minor company to meet. TheGrappler (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps to put the reason I included the company size more clearly: if the company had $100 million in revenue, it would be more likely the required depth of coverage exists. If an enterprise had billions in revenue, adequate coverage would almost certainly exist. Around the $1 million mark, then the apparent lack of depth of coverage in the article citations, or when I had a search for alternative references, is more suggestive that such coverage does not exist rather than it just hasn't been included yet. TheGrappler (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What WP:CORP says looks completely meaningless to me. How local? How limited? The Vatican City is a Sovereign State, and coverage confined to that State would be "national", despite the fact that it has a population of a thousand. To give another example, the Republic of San Marino is smaller than some towns. These sort of criteria are not objective. James500 (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC) The questions that I would ask are: (1) Are the sources reliable? (2) Do they have something meaningful to say about the subject? Provided that they were reliable, I would not be particularly interested in their circulation, unless it was asserted that low circulation is evidence of unreliability. James500 (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. It would not hurt if objecting editor Martincallan were to admit that he is a, if not the only, principal of the subject firm. (He is the only person that shows under the oddly named "team" on the "solution"'s (sic) website. In other terms, this is pure WP:PROMO in violation of WP:COI. As for the article, I read it as promo too. The one external article in the references is at a dead link, but searching further it was an ad-ish fluff piece in a local outlet. Likewise the other external link. There is nothing under G, GN, GS. Simply a massive fail of WP:ORG, would warrant speed delete.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  00:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence that this firm meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable small firm, WP:ADV. The author Martin Callan has a CoI on this subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2013 (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.