Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GhSMART & Company, Inc.


 * 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

GhSMART & Company, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The firm does seem to be notable, but the promotional format and language is so pervasive that it would be better deleted and rewritten. It was nominated for Speedy G11, and I would have deleted it but another admin saw it first & suggested AfD instead. I think for this sort of puffery, the balance should lie towards deletion first, and rewriting second,, so as not to leave WP page histories cluttered with bad examples--and to make it clear that this sort of work is not tolerated. As I advised the editor involved, jargon like "maximizing the leadership ability of company CEOs", "maximize career success", "building companies", and "core competency" should be avoided. not to mention such PR-puffery as "received praise in the autobiography of a prominent client".

If people are going to write articles for their company or for a client, it does the subjects no good to write in this manner. We tolerate COI editing only when it follows good encyclopedic writing practice. If it sounds like a PR piece, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. If people can not avoid writing in PR-talk, they should not be writing in Wikipedia.  DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete partly per DGG. I denied G11 since I think it could be rewritten (I'd let two sentences stand, maybe three), but removal is warranted since despite the fluff this is not a notable company: I can't find a single reliable source that discusses the company in depth and yada yada (insert excerpt from DGG's talk a few days ago here), and it's clear that the article is written specifically in this way to mask that fact. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Agree with the pervasive promotional problem. Agree that the firm does seem notable.  So to make review easier, I stubbed the article down to some basics.  -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)  10:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Appreciate the stubifying. Reducing the page to mere sources helps me see what's actually present, and there's something here worth keeping. IMHO, the Business Insider first source and the WSJ source cover WP:CORP. I'd like to see more direct detailing, but the book itself seems to be likely to meet GNG and WP:NBOOK. BusterD (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 09:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - This topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per:, , . Northamerica1000(talk) 09:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree. Coverage like this  proves notability.   D r e a m Focus  11:10, 28 July 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.