Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Alexander Group


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Alexander Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable company lacking GHtits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY.  ttonyb (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Searching is difficult, because the phrase "Alexander group" appears in so many different contexts. But a more refined search for "Alexander group" combined with "executive search" found many hits in major sources like the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Los Angeles Times. Admittedly these hits are not ABOUT the company - they are quoting executives of the company to shed light on news stories of the day  - but their widespread use as a go-to source by journalists suggests that they are regarded as notable experts in the field. If kept, the article needs major work, since the only references provided now are self-referential.  --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

MelanieN what could be done to improve the page? I created the content, and it was my first Wiki article. More sources? More editors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Stuart (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What the article needs is references to WP:Reliable Sources - not press releases or company websites, but independent third parties writing about the company. These are needed to prove that the company is "notable" by Wikipedia's criteria - see WP:Company. The examples I cited above show the company or its employees being cited by major news organizations, which I think help to support notability (other editors may not agree, however). Adding some of those references could help - maybe a line saying something like "The Group's expertise is often sought by journalists to shed light on current news stories," and then cite three or four of the references I found. The article could use a little more history - for example when the various branches were established. Also, delete the WP:Puffery boosterish comments like "the firm is justifiably proud..." That kind of thing makes the article's purpose sound like advertising rather than encyclopedic; the tone has to be completely neutral. Ideally the lead paragraph should explain why the company is notable - for example, how does its size compare to other similar firms? Does it have any significant "firsts"? Good luck; I think this article can be saved. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as there don't seem to be any sources that are primarily about the subject. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:16, 28 October 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.