Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JL McGregor & Company


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

JL McGregor & Company
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

All provided references are just minor mentions. Only press releases and first-party sources have the company as the subject. Also, this article is orphaned for a year (with the last attempt unsuccessful). Alexius08 (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, likely speedy delete candidate as a business providing services to other businesses that makes no credible claim of importance. The only reliable source mentioned that is not simply a listing or an internal site is to a book review of a book apparently written by one of the owners - the review tells us nothing about this business itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I tend to strongly favor including "businesses providing services to other businesses" whenever there's enough material to make an article that is tightly-sourced, even if it is short...these types of businesses make the world go round, and are often behind the scenes so it is expected that they receive less coverage. This source:  seems to establish some importance of the company and his CEO.  Admittedly this case is marginal so I'm not going to lament if it's deleted but I just wanted to point out that I think people tend to jump overeagerly to delete this sort of thing.  And I feel very strongly that this is not a candidate for speedy deletion.  In my opinion, the article's current text already makes claims to it being important or significant.  Google news shows that people from the company are often quoted about the state of business in China.  Also, a google news search shows that the company owns Pacific Epoch.  It's hard to assess the notability of Pacific Epoch because it publishes a great deal of material that is picked up in google news search.  But this attempt at a search:  demonstrates that Pacific Epoch is very likely notable.  Does this make this company notable as the parent company?  Not necessarily.  But the point is, this is hardly a clear-cut nomination.  Cazort (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Businesses like this may be important, but the fact that they're "behind the scenes so it is expected that they receive less coverage" makes them poor subjects for Wikipedia articles.  This is apparently a firm of market analysts operating in East Asia.  This kind of business usually operates out of an anonymous office suite.  Its only assets are human or financial.  Having no hard assets, these businesses come into being and merge or dissolve quickly.  It puts forth few products under its own brand that reach the eyes of the general public.  No matter how you slice it, it just stands very little chance of being notable or durable enough to become a subject of an encyclopedia article. Frankly there'd be something wrong with the notability guidelines if they didn't tend to the deletion of puff pieces about these scarcely visible businesses.  The sources you've mentioned make a case for the notability of the founder, not of the company.  He serves on a board of some sort of trade website.  He has a book published.  He's the former head of Dow Jones in China.  He might count as a historical figure about whom there might be some interest a hundred years from now.  But this business?  I am still not convinced. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely think all the points you are making are valid. I'd rather have a very small article or stub of whatever material on the page can be well-sourced, than have it deleted.  I mainly thought the suggestion of speedy delete was jumping the gun.  But I don't feel all that strongly about keeping this page and I don't think much would be lost by deleting it.  Cazort (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Major firm in its field. The cvs of the officers of course should be removed. DGG (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2009 (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.