Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NERA Economic Consulting


 * 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. WP:SNOW j⚛e deckertalk 15:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

NERA Economic Consulting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deleted following an expired prod. Restored on request but no attempt has been made to add evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD. Just about every paragraph is puffery, which, if removed, would leave almost nothing left. It may be notable, but clearly someone with a COI wrote this as a promotional puff piece. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete As for notability, it clearly  is a major company in its field, and it possibly  is notable, but it needs proof of this, by our usual method:  references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. There are no such references: merely the ranking from a career intelligence web site, and its own wen page.
 * As for promotionalism, the article consists ofa paragraph of description mixed with puffery and unsupported adjectives of praise, a list of the routine services they offer, a list of offices, and a list of competitors. The first paragraph belongs nowhere unless rewritten from scratch, and the 2nd and 3rd belong only on their own website' the list of competitors is repeated in the lede & the text and really belongs as a category--the way it's used is as advertising that this firm is better than they are . Multiple efforts over time to clean up this article have failed, and the only practical course is to start over--by someone without COI. I think it's safe to assume any editor writing arrant puffery has a COI
 * I declined to restore it, on the basis that if I did I would just nominate it for a G11. I could do that now, but since it's been brought here, let the consensus deal with it.  DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as a G11. This article is little more than a press release or ad, and has no business being here without a fundamental rewrite. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 01:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, spam. Also very likely a copyvio, I just can't find the source StarM 17:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is spam from start to finish. I've added just about the only thing that wasn't spam (the founding date, founding name, and founders to Oliver Wyman with an independent source. Speaking of which, the latter article could use a good dose of the red pencil. Voceditenore (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2014 (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.