Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Salmon Associates


 * 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   keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Salmon Associates

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Kurt Salmon Associates. References given are unrelated and do not confer notability of the articles topic. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think Kurt Salmon is notable enough, but I think the article needs to be significantly edited, shortened and better references need to be added. The SPA account is a minor concern in my opinion, as there are no SPAs on this AfD yet.  The article has too much self-promotion and needs significant a rewrite, but at its core there is a subject of sufficient notability that could be turned into a useful article.   DRosin (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Week keep, but rewrite: The firm is mentioned in a good number of books, but usually just mentioning that they did one or another study. However, it's been around for a good while, so it could sort of scrape by on notability in my opinion. The article itself needs a serious rewrite, though: it has way too much puff.  The real useful substance could fit in one paragraph.  The list of "notable" associates gives citations that don't come close to establishing notability, so it should just be deleted. --Slashme (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.