Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Corporation


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

West Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

pure unadulterated spam with no redeeming qualities Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Major Rewrite. Plenty of implied notability and some independent third party coverage.  However, in it's current form, I agree with nom.  Unless there is a major rewrite (which I may take on this week), it should be deleted.  At the very least, all promotional and non encyclopedic information should be removed and it should be stubbed. --v/r - TP 19:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: per removal of spammy content, addition of sources, and change in tone.--v/r - TP 16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

*Speedy delete - blatantly spammy with the usual blather about "solutions" and the like. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Previous AfD here.--v/r - TP 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. As it stands article is horible, however, a G-News search throws up lots of stuff which makes the company look to be plenty notable, so I'm disinclined to lose the page altogether. Maybe it should just be slashed back to a stub and then policed so only NPOV encyclopaedic edits are let through in the future rather than what looks to be cut and paste corporate bio spam.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep if stubbified - response - the article dates back to 2004; possibly there's a toy pony under the dungpile, if we stubbify it harshly enough. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * follow-up - I stubbified it pretty briskly, and now am getting e-mails from the role account person who had done the COI edits, saying that the article is incorrect and should be deleted (but not telling me what's incorrect).
 * I've thrown a citation in there to give some credibillity to the article. It's not great, being a report on their financial returns and therefore a bit primary, but it establishes they exist. It also lists their business as a lot more general than just CRM, so I've changed the wording to reflect.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. If the original author claims that a neutral version should be deleted, and that to be correct the article must read like an advertisement, I'd be inclined to accept that as a request for deletion from the originating editor. The current version of the article describes this as a provider of outsourced services, including customer relationship management (CRM) services, conference call services, privatized 911 service, automated business telephone systems, systems integration, help desks, business-to-business sales, responses to advertisements, and debt collection.  They may be quite a large firm doing this.  But a business of this sort just isn't likely to have verifiably had significant effects on history, culture, or technology.  I didn't find anything other than routine business page and press-release driven coverage on the first several pages of Google News results once I tried to winnow the search terms to filter out the many false positives. "West Teleservices" is slightly better, but the closest it comes to historic significance is an offhand reference that they've been placing political junk calls.  As far as I can see this one ain't for the history books.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTED is appropriate here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I did a little research with the aim of finding new sources to expand the article. I added one other third-party reference and I found some West subsidiaries and corporate acquisitions, at least two of which had separate Wikipedia articles (and at least one of which was a publicly traded company before being acquired by West). I figure that the fact that I had never heard of this company is mostly a result of its using a plain-vanilla name; it seems to be a very large business operating with a lot of other brand names. It looks to me like a WP:notable business, and the stubbification of the article has resolved the WP:SOAP issues that seem to have inspired this AfD. --Orlady (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2011 (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.