Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Strategic Counsel


 * 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  08:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Strategic Counsel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The lead relates to a Canadian organisation. The bulk of the article is about an Australian organisation with which it should not be confused. A quick inspection of the revision history suggests that the only reference ever present since the article's creation in 2005 has been the Canadian organisation's website. A WP:BEFORE search turned up some LinkedIn profiles, but nothing WP:RS about either organisation. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just to be clear, from its creation in 2005 the article was always only about the Canadian company until just 12 days ago, when somebody added the Australian lobbying firm as brand new content that was never in the article before this year — but neither topic has the proper sourcing to support its notability per WP:CORP or WP:ORG, as the Canadian company cites no sources at all (and has never previously had any sources in it before) while the Australian firm cites only its own self-published primary sourcing. And I can't find solid sourcing on a ProQuest search to repair the Canadian company's notability, either — I get a lot of glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things (mainly political or social stories in which SC happens to have done some polling), but I can't find adequate coverage about SC as a subject. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually find the correct kind of sourcing to give one or the other of them much more depth than just a brief statement that it exists, but neither of these topics is cutting it under our notability and sourcing criteria as they actually stand. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2019 (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.