Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novus 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 of the debate was No consensus=keep (2/4). May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  16:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Novus Consulting
Reads like an ad or a company prospectus. Has considerable content admittedly from the comapny website. No clear indication of notability or importance. Delete DES (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Might be willing to reconsider if notability were established, but simply "being a business" is not notable.  --Alan Au 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and BURN ALL ADVERTS. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thank you for your feedback. I have to admit being new to the addition of pages, but I am at loss to see where you are backing your claims up that this is an advert or overtly resorting to propaganda. Reading the 'What Wikipedia is not' page leads me to believe, in section 1.4, that an article written 'in an objective and unbiased style' on a company that is third party verifiable is allowed. If there are parts of the article that lead to it being biased, I will clear them up, as long as they are pointed out. I do admit to using the company's website as well, though I do not think I made claims using that information that are biased. Lastly, though 'being a business' is not notable, being a business that clearly impacts the community around it is notable. Because of their presence in municipal and provincial government (as well as working with the RCMP in the area), they have a clear hand in the community around Victoria, British Columbia. And, while you may toss this out of hand, I am not an employee of Novus, I am the son of a police officer whose department's network security relies on Novus. Pfizerman 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If the buisness is significant to the community, and therefore notable, the article should say so, and say why. The tone of the current article feels very much, to me, like a corproate flier. That often gets negative reactions here. You might take a look at WP:SPAM. DES (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I made some quick changes, if you could leave comments here about them, I'd be appreciative. Pfizerman 23:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep By looking at the list of clients it is clear this company plays an important role in Canada. However, there are three links to the company website, which make it sound like an advertisement.  Perhaps remove the links to the website outside of the external links, and also the section about the logo.  Jtrost 23:33, 4 November, 2005 (UTC)
 * Further changes were helpfully made by DES. I would, however, appreciate further suggestions to bring this article up to wikipedia standards. Pfizerman 23:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment (no vote). I'm not sure it meets WP:CORP, but at the same time, to me it doesn't look anything like a flier or anything like that. I think a lot of time and effort actually went into this page, and we should spend the same time and effort researching it before we take it away. I think the recent edits have helped a lot. Jacqui  ★ 23:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a further addendum, on the WP:CORP issue, one of the inclusions into wiki's qualifications is "The company holds more than a 20% share in the market area that it competes in." I did some research, and since they handle, or help handle, the majority of CRD networks, I think that qualifies them as having more than a 20% of the share in the area they compete in for CRD networks. If this is too flimsy an inclusion, please let me know. Pfizerman 00:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly advertising and doesn't add any useful information to Wikipedia. Catamorphism 00:40, 5 November 2005 (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.