Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornhill 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   Userfied. In this case i would point to the notability guideline that states that an article is notable if "A topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". In this case i would argue that the added sources only include a brief mention of the company or related personell before moving on to other subjects. The fx-mm article makes a brief mention before changing into an essay written by the company director. The microsoft case only includes a brief mention before it starts discussing the merits of microsoft products. Therefor i believe that the "Significant coverage" part is lacking. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 11:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cornhill Consulting

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested speedy, elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, strongly. This is a risk management consultancy.  Absolutely no showing that this business has any kind of historical, technical, or cultural significance, which is what a business needs to show to meet the general notability guideline and rate an encyclopedia article.  "References" supplied are articles by business personnel in online trade papers, not about the business itself. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. An independent third-party reference (Microsoft case study) is also included which shows the business as an innovator. Happy to amend the article to meet the criteria, but still looking for some tips as to what would be permissible? Would references to awards won for innovation help? Jamesedwardnicholls (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — Jamesedwardnicholls (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Big-business bias? - it is naturally difficult to find external sources of information about small businesses - but I note that one of the principles of Wikipedia is that this should not lead to a bias against small businesses. Jamesedwardnicholls (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability - within the field of risk management, in particular liquidity risk, the work which Cornhill is doing is notable. The firm has held conferences on the subject and - as shown in the references - is beginning to publish comments in trade journals. These contributions are important to the development of best practice in the industry and, therefore, I believe are notable in their own right. Small businesses are never going to be "notable" in the sense of mass market consumer interest, but the same could be said to apply to many aspects science, which Wikipedia often covers in extreme detail. Jamesedwardnicholls (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — Jamesedwardnicholls (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Delete  Small businesses can be notable - but there's no indication in the article of this one being so. The references are to the company site, articles authored by James Nicholls, to a listing of companies involved in a discussion, and to the Microsoft thing. I will quote from that: "we have included some relevant small business case studies". Not a great indicator of notability, especially when it says " Cornhill Consulting is a growing company with big ambitions." Having big ambitions is good for a business - within reason. Having an article on Wikipedia is also a good thing, but it requires much better referencing than this has to show clearly the importance of the business. In a Google search for "Cornhill Consulting" I found many PR references in the usual places (LinkedIn etc - but strangely apparently not aboutus.com) but few links that I considered worth opening - and those were just the same stuff or not mentioning Cornhill when you got in. It is hard lines on small businesses in some ways, but remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a directory or free web space. Indicators of notability vary from subject area to subject area. I don't believe they have been met here. Prove me wrong..... (BTW I do wish Cornhill success and an article in the future.) Peridon (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy per request from article's creator. Peridon (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One for later I can see that I'm tacking against the wind here, so perhaps the article could be moved to a user space (correct terminology?) until the business has achieved some more "notability"...? Can anybody help me understand why this article Algorithmics Inc. is acceptable? Is it just that Algorithmics has been listed in a couple of magazines (Risk and Waters)? Jamesedwardnicholls (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see that I had proposed Algorithmics Inc. for deletion some time ago, and never followed up after the PROD was removed.  That has been remedied: Articles for deletion/Algorithmics Inc. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops Smerdis really takes this stuff to heart! Jamesedwardnicholls (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. It's sometimes the only way we can find the ones that slip through the net. There are so many articles to watch. Most of us regular editors stick to our own areas, others monitor certain pages only. Peridon (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd add that the topic of risk management in banking is timely and interesting, and I'm glad to greet a new editor who's published serious work on the subject. It's just that interested parties writing about the businesses they own or who employ them pose a number of issues, mostly focused on the difficulty interested parties have in being objective.  There is also the issue of whether they are significant enough subjects that ought to be covered in an encyclopedia, and again, interested parties tend to choose... unwisely.  (Frankly, to the extent that your job relates to managing other people's money, the kind of notoriety that gets you remembered in encyclopedias is probably the last thing I would wish for your firm.)  I would be happy to see this article sent to a user page, at any rate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete/userfy Maybe later, when/if the company generates some coverage by third parties. Note: press releases and such don't count. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, no claim of notability in article, no information of encyclopedic value. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:03, 4 June 2010 (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.