Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SalesLabs


 * 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. I am deleting but without prejudice. It can be recreated if reliable sources can be found to support notability. The sources need to focus on the company itself, not on studies, not on the founder and not on the founder's book. Surely some independent source has covered the company. Bring that to it and all will be fine. In the meantime, I will userfy upon request so that work can be done on the article JodyBtalk 21:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

SalesLabs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of significance, but lets get other input on the issue. Wikianoldie (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - there is a couple of indications of significance, for example winning two Stevie Awards. But apart from that the article is entirely cited to primary sources and heavily embedded with promotional urls to company homepages and book sales sites. The author "Daersalohcin" is clearly the firm's founder, Nicholas Read. This is almost a speedy deletion candidate because it would need a complete overhaul to be encyclopedic in any way, we'd be left with a couple of sentences about the Stevie's! I can't see any evidence of significant news coverage about any of the other activities of the company - either way, Wikipedia isn't the place to belatedly start a publicity campaign. Sionk (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion declined - Do note this company is a spin-off from Ernst & Young. When CapGemini span out of Ernst & Young, it was appropriate for that company to have a Wikipedia entry. So too for this, otherwise it looks like discrimination. The company is a factual entity performing a service to a specific industry. It should not be deleted. Claims of importance - the company produced a best-selling book; the company is a leader in its field with Fortune 100 clients...it's deletion would seem bizarre in the business landscape.


 * Companies (and people) aren't entitled to a listing because they exist, they need to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria too. There's no evidence in the article about your claims. In fact it says it was founded in 1994 and 2008, which can't both be correct! Sionk (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -- As a private company, I would expect there to be some evidence that it has substantial assets, profits or turnover before I could vote to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Article overhauled to remove self referential content, and instead cite industry journal sources that meet the notability criteria about why the business merits entry due to its unique research and position within its industry cluster. Sionk's concern about company founding date is resolved. The article was confusing in citing the 1964 original founding, the rebranding of the business and its acquisition and departure from Ernst & Young in 2008, Good advice, thank you. News coverage citations have been added from outlets such as Inc magazine, USAToday, Forbes and others, trusting these are deemed appropriate as 'significant news coverage'. Again, helpful advice, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daersalohcin (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -- User Sionk's comments have been reviewed again, plus their advice to other submitters has been viewed in Sionk's history to anticipate other areas likely to raise concern. We hope all items now comply. The only Reference that cites a company webpage is Ref 19, and only because the television interview is housed there. But it was not created by SalesLabs. It went to air live on the television channel. We trust this doesn't create confusion, but are happy to receive further direction, even if it is to delete the reference. Daersalohcin —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)




 * Comment --Thanks Mark Arsten. We appreciate user Sionk's edits and trust everyone is happy with the current entry to move ahead at this time. Note however that we risk running into changes of diminishing returns when making edits to appease one reviewer incurs the critique of another for having made those changes. For this reason we'd like to agree the entry stands as is, for now. We have taken inspiration from other approved entries with regards to both the entry's structure, content and wording, in the hope that what is fair and reasonable for those entries will find consistent treatment for this entry.
 * Keep Firstly, as a housekeeping measure, Daersalohcin, it is easier for others to follow the conversation when you sign your posts. This is as easy as typing four tildes (~) at the end of your posts.  Thanks in advance.  Secondly, many of the cites and sources added are reliable sources about the challenges of adult learning and information retention.  These demonstrate that the challenges of these areas are notable and widely discussed in the business world in relation to sales teams.  They don't, however, demonstrate that the SalesLabs company is similarly-discussed.  What seems more odd to me is that Managing Partner Nic Read was invited to discuss these issues in a Forbes article which directly addresses the notability of SalesLabs.  This isn't in a bloggy section of Forbes, so I would accept this as a reliable source of the type that the article needs.  So I think that SalesLabs passes the bar of notability, although the article needs further work. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a surprising conclusion. Read was not talking about SalesLab and, even if he was, he's hardly reliable and independent if he is founder of the company. Sionk (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2013 (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.