Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgeworth Economics (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nakon 03:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Edgeworth Economics
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article on this company was deleted in Feb 2014 after WP:Articles for deletion/Edgeworth Economics. Recently new user, correctly disclosing that he is a paid advocate for the company, approached The Bushranger as closing admin, asking permission to create an article. Learning that The Bushranger is currently inactive, he placed a new draft on the article talk page. I noticed it there, moved it to a Draft page, and advised him about COI and notability. He has now completed his version and asked me about posting it. I am doubtful about the depth of coverage in the references, but it could be argued that coverage of the work the company has done indicates importance. I believe that DRV would say "relist", so I have decided that the best course is to accept the article from Draft space, and bring it here for a community view on notability. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, JohnCD. The first article was deleted because it primarily referenced promotional articles. I believe the revised entry addresses these concerns by referencing articles in the Wall Street Journal and other reputable, third-party sources. In terms of notability, I understand that there could be some debate. My argument - as JohnCD noted - is that Edgeworth Economics is notable based on the high-profile work that they do, and the high-profile media outlets that have featured Edgeworth in their coverage of these cases. If any reviewers would like more information or context, please do not hesitate to ask, and I will provide whatever I can. Thank you for your time. Wikimikework (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing notable about this company; fails wp:corp. None of the cited sources are about the company, and the references lean heavily on two areas that are specifically designated as trivial coverage in the wp:corp policy: "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." LaMona (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Although there are many Reliable Sources cited in the references, they are all passing mentions, not significant coverage as required for WP:CORP. In a search I found passing mentions and press releases. Bottom line, this is the kind of company that works in the background and rarely gets significant coverage, thus rarely meets WP:CORP - so that an article is unlikely even in the future. I would like to compliment Wikimikework for doing the best they could to create a valid Wikipedia article, and for being upfront about their position as a paid editor. It meant we could focus on the article itself, without side-issue suspicion about whether the author had a COI. --MelanieN (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2015 (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.