Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of management consulting firms


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

List of management consulting firms

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No reason for list to exist. By its own definition, it is an exact duplicate of Category:Management consulting firms. Per WP:LIST, WP:SALAT and WP:CLN, this information is best served as a category rather than a list. Jayron  32  04:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, although I note that the list cannot exactly duplicate the category since the list has a few redlinks on it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, the list can be improved, unlike the category. See also WP:CLN for the redundancy argument. Polarpanda (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A list like this is just a spamtrap. The category is the right tool, and per WP:NOTDIR we do not try to list every notable management consulting firm (particularly the redlink ones). Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just list those that have articles about them.  D r e a m Focus  11:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dream is on point. In fact, in its form up until this AfD, the list made clear in its title that it was limited to firms with wp articles on them.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Jayron32, this list is distinct and seperate topic from Management consulting, and a distinct and seperate definition is required to identify it as such in accordance with WP:LIST. Article and list Topics don't inherit a rationale for inclusion from each other, they need provide evidence that they are verifiable topics in their own right. In answer to Colonel Warden, if this is a valid source, then why is not cite this source in the list? You must know by now that WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid argument. This list topic is based on the madeup premise that "This list includes notable Management Consulting firms". Who says they are notable? Who says these firms are "major" consulting firms? Such strong claims must be backed up by exceptional sources, not hearsay or unsupported claims that this list topic has "clearly not made up". Wikipedia is not the yellow pages of the management consulting world. There has to some form of external validation in the form of a sourced definition for this list, otherwise content policy which prohibits promotional topics cannot be enforced. We need to know that this article is not spam, and we can only know this if its defintion comes a reliable source provides evidence that it is not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Its perfectly acceptable for a Wikipedia list, as it aids in navigation. No reason to destroy it, just because some prefer categories to list.  I prefer list myself, they far easier to look through and use.  And additional information can be added to this list, a short sentence or two about each company listed here.   D r e a m Focus  11:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since probably most of these businesses should not have stand alone articles in the first place, a list of them probably should not be here either.  The first entry starts off with some morally troubling text, rose-colored but quite foggy:  A.T. Kearney is a global management consulting firm, focusing on strategic and operational CEO-agenda concerns. The stated mission of A.T. Kearney is to help the world’s leading corporations gain and sustain competitive advantage, and achieve profound, tangible results. Its slogan is: Ideas that last.  There's similar twaddle throughout the article: Their goal is to provide evidence and help with making decisions, with the motto ‘Better Decisions, Better World’. ....generally ranked as one of the most "prestigious" management consulting firms in the industry.... generalist strategy consultancy with expertise across all major industries. It is a principal adviser to private equity, and was the number 1 adviser in number of transactions in Europe during 2007.... a leading adviser...  If this is kept, all of this spammy nonsense ought to be relentlessly scrubbed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I took a few minutes this morning to improve the article by strengthening the lead-in and adding descriptions and in some case sourcing for each entry. These descriptions were taken from the lead-in for individual articles and may need some improvement to remove redundancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Cline (talk • contribs) --Mike Cline (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination Based on the work done by Mike Cline in demonstrating the suitibleness of this list and on improving the article (for which he should be commended), my initial objections, based on the state I found the article in (see ) have all been addressed. In my opinion, this is the best result of an AFD discussion.  I understand that people have already voted delete, and so this may still run the full week before closing, but I wanted to note that my objections to this article, as nominator, have been addressed. -- Jayron  32  16:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason for nomination to exist. AFD is not cleanup.  Categories do not supersede lists. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The terms are clearly not made up. See Management consulting which, while it could use some help stylisticly, clearly establishes itself as a notable concept; the term is used in the titles of books in the "further reading" section, for example.  See also Association of Management Consulting Firms, which is an organization which uses the term directly.  The list topic, management consulting firms, is clearly a well defined one. -- Jayron  32  15:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This cookie cutter contribution seems deceptive as it seems to have been made without regard to the facts. A simple search instantly finds lists of management consulting firms in sources such as The essentials of management consulting, "A list of major management consulting firms is provided in the table on the following pages. For a detailed list of companies...". Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Lets be blunt, guys, this list is just pure spam, there is no avoiding this criticism, and you should be ashamed of your involement with this list, which as a topic has no external definition to demonstrate its authenticity.
 * The answer to "who says they are notable" is that Wikipedia says they are notable, by having articles about them. If you believe some entries on the list are non-notable I encourage you to nominate them for deletion. Polarpanda (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't use Wikipedia as source, otherwise that would self-referencing. There needs to be some form of external source to support this statement. Its a bit like saying "This is a list of management consultants featured in Wikipedia", which is not a valid rationale for inclusion, even if it the truth; remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. A list topic should only have its own standalone list article if there reliable, third party source that provide a definition, and in doing so, attest to existence of the topic in the real world, not just within Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Are you, Gavin.collins, seriously arguing that Wikipedia guidelines do not allow for the creation of lists at all?  It certainly sounds like that.  Under your crietria, it would be impossible for a list to exist at Wikipedia.  Take any other random list.  What is functionally different between this list, and say List of volcanoes of Canada.  I really want to understand your arguement, but it is making no sense to me.  Perhaps you can explain what it is about this list that makes it non-notable.  I am far to stupid to understand how your arguement against this list could still allow list articles at Wikipedia to exist at all.  Could you perhaps explain that to me, using existing list articles which you think are acceptable?  I really want to get this, because apparently I have completely misunderstood something fundemental here.  -- Jayron  32  16:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think it not unusual to ask for some for of verification. This list does not have a verifiable definition, therefore it has been WP:MADEUP. Unless you can provide a verifiable definition, then this list is just a pile of indiscriminate crap with a spamy twist. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - there's a category for all these pages. I can't think of any time it would be useful to anyone to have a list of various consulting firms, scattered across the world, notable for different things. The category fulfills any organizational purpose this list serves. -- Pump me  up  14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your position is that we should ignore WP:CLN in this case, more specifically ignore: Accordingly, these methods [Categories, Lists and Navigation Templates] should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. and Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. Is that correct, we should ignore this guideline?  Additionally, your statement: I can't think of any time it would be useful to anyone... begs the question: Are you representing your personal opinion of the list or what you believe is the position of the millions of WP readers? --Mike Cline (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:CLN is a load of rubbish, because it fails to differentiate between Wikipedia mainspace (articles and lists) which are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, and all other pages (such as categories), which are not. Its about time some editor slayed this dragon, since it is entirely misleading page of so called "guidance". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia contains many thousands of lists and so your general hostility to lists is just an idiosyncratic dislike which is neither supported by consensus nor the policies which record this consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, Colonel, you should know better than use this tired form of argument: WP:ADHOM. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When I address your personal qualities, you will know it. In this case, I address your general argument.  This is peculiar to yourself and not supported by our general practise and policy.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you know this? I would suggest the Colonel has no such information to support this view, verfiable or otherwise. Lets just stick to the subject in hand. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CLN: overlapping with categories is allowed. I see no reason that this doesn't function as a coherent list article since it has been trimmed to blue links and well-sourced. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: complies with WP:List and does not violate OR or POV.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Of the arguments for deletion, two of them are contrary to policy. The first is that a category and a list are mutually exclusive. The second is that for a list to be notable, the actual subject of there being of list of whatever has to have been discussed in secondary sources--rather than the actual standard that the subject of the list has to be notable and there have to be notable entries to put in it.    The other two    reasons were given were not not contrary to policy,  but contrary to the facts: First, that the nature of the list was undefined.  Certainly we cannot have a "List of interesting people."--we have to do what the list is about in a reasonably enough way to judge whether something should be on it. But a management consulting firm is a well defied concept, so well defined that we have articles on many aspects of it--even the nom., of the article for deletion said that argument was clearly wrong.   Second, that the contents were spam. They can't be, because the items in the list are firms with articles in WP, and have therefore been judged not spam, but notable; any which are not can be challenged as articles. And now there's one other argument: a false accusation of ad hom argument, for the perfectly true statement that the criteria proposed for the list are such that almost no list could possibly meet it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Had assumed this would be speedy closed after Mike's excellent work, but see that it has not.  So I'll also state the obvious -- keep, for all the reasons expressed above, including of course DGG's typical thoughtful reasoning.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I strongly disagree with the ideas mentioned above that lists do not need to assert notability. Stand-alone lists are articles (WP:STAND makes this explicit) so they most certainly do need to assert notability of the subject matter, ie: the list. If the list itself isn't notable the info can be presented elsewhere, but not as a stand-alone article.  The notability criteria shouldn't be too hard to pass for truly notable lists, such as AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies.


 * The trouble is that it would be nice to retain the content of a few of these list non-articles. I personally think the solution is a new type of mainspace designation but unfortunately I don't see a consensus for this, judging by the mixed reception to the "Outline of Knowledge" WikiProject, which is a stab at something akin to what I'm thinking.  Them From  Space  15:11, 10 May 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.