Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott-Moncrieff


 * 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. Sandstein 10:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Scott-Moncrieff


WP:CORP - crz crztalk 13:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- significant accountancy firm in Scotland Astrotrain 13:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions.  - crz crztalk 13:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - the subject matter is potentially notable but this is an un-referenced stub whose main purpose seems to be to direct visitors to a commercial website. In short, it is {db:spam}. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hardly, I wrote it at the same time as various other accoutnancy firm articles. Astrotrain 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Astrotrain, I have no wish to cause offence, and maybe my wicki-jargon is not up-to-speed. I certainly don't mean to suggest that you are 'spamming', just that in my opinion, unreferenced articles about commercial organisations that appear to be 'blatant advertising for a company, product, group or service that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article' per Template:Db-spam should be deleted. I certainly have nothing against Scott-Moncrieff themselves who are a professional and competent organisation. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- small accountancy firms are NN, although there have been some notable Scott-Moncrieffs in the past, especially in the motoring community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pete Fenelon (talk • contribs).
 * Delete unless notability is asserted by reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. WMMartin 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable (it appears #36 in the top 50 ranking of accountancy firms (link provided in the article), sounds like WP:SPAM and in no way complies WP:CORP. -- docking man  talk 06:13, 2 December 2006 (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.