Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infotech Strategies

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'm applying my admin's discretion here and I certainly hope I am not going to be accused of making a rash decision (though, of course, I would welcome a message on my talk page followed by a deletion review if anyone disagrees with my closure). There are a couple of concerns or factors in this AfD that led me to this decision, and I lent a lot more weight to people who !voted after the article was written down to a regular stub (at around 06:20 on 3 October 2006):

1. The original author asked that this article be deleted. While not the ultimate deciding factor in any deletion of an article, this is still A factor.
2. Second to the first point, the original author, and indeed, some other !voters, thought that the information is wrong.
3. Is there more than one Infotech Strategies? Perhaps, and if so, a disambig page would be useful, but in the meantime, it doesn't help to have a mish-mash of information on two or more companies residing in the article history, especially when the information on these two or more companies are merged to appear as one.
4. Regardless of whether the information is correct, this company might not be notable enough for an article. There are arguments for and against keeping this article solely on the basis of notability, but most of the arguments are that this company is not notable enough.

All these are the reasons I decided to close this article as delete. I have no prejudice against the recreation of this article if it turns out that there are two or more companies with this name, and these two or more companies are all notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infotech Strategies

• Hello everyone, there seem to have been some misunderstanding. I began the page as a project and the information currently on the page is completely wrong. I would like to delete the entire page because the information currently on is incorrect. Most of the people listed with the company where never employees of the company, and info tech never took over any corporate entities. The company is also not a lobby group. I apologize for the whole mix up, and I would grateful if this page could be deleted. I am trying to avoided damaging a good company image with faulty information.:- KHNY 3, October 2006 EST

Blatant advert. -- RHaworth 03:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has been rewritten into a regular stub. Zocky | picture popups 06:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Strong Delete ummmmk. Danny Lilithborne 03:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Infotech Strategies is a notable company and therefor should staySkynet1216 03:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What a convincing argument. I'm changing my vote. Danny Lilithborne 03:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Creator's only contributions. Tagged as such. MER-C 04:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Didn't I already speedy this.... - obviously delete, advert -- Tawker 05:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• I-have-to-jump-on-the-bandwagon-before-it's-too-late delete per nom. Daniel.Bryant 05:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing to Weak Keep after it was made into an extended stub, and minus the advert. Daniel.Bryant 12:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Don't feel that its unsalvageable spam(hence not 'speediable'), but its junk and I'd be left with a super-stub article since nothing is externally sourced. They look to be lobbists though,[1] but the only news on them I could find were press releases. Their section detailing them as such reads so slantedly positive its dangerous. Kevin_b_er 06:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Precious reliable sources are here. Enough to warrant keeping this article. After searching a long time, I finally found the bizjournals source, only to have it already be there, along with some profiles of the people involved. Was worried last night after some searching I would never see the verifiability for them, but not a problem anymore. --Kevin_b_er 16:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite. Quite a big lobbying group, if I'm reading [2] correctly, but the prose needs to be improved. Zocky | picture popups 06:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed, but the fact remains I can't find anything besides some basic numbers on their lobbying counts, (outside of their PR releases, of course). I'd love to find some nice reliable sources for them, but so far I've had tough luck. Kevin_b_er 06:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They seem to be pumping millions of dollars into lobbying US politicians and getting their clients on national TV networks. I think such activities are significant. Of course it would be best if we can dig up more data on them, but I think we should at least tellg readers that "Information and Communication Technology consulting firm" means "lobbying group". Zocky | picture popups 06:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Destroy. Ryūlóng 06:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If this is in fact a lobbying group that describes itself as a consultancy business, that may well make it notable. The original author attempted to blank the objectively written version, and removed the AFD notice. (I put back.) What's there now is free from advertising tone and seems written in plain English. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I also protected the rewritten version of the page, which has been repeatedly blanked by User:KHNY, the initial author of the spammy version. The closing admin can of course undo this if that is warranted at the time. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's not like they're doing something illegal or unusual. Lobbying groups usually call themselves things like this. Has the original author left any messages why they are unhappy with the current version? Zocky | picture popups 15:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• I left a message at the user's page explaining the situation, and since I see no reason to expect further problems (we are talking about a serious company, not a bunch of thugs), I've unprotected the page. Zocky | picture popups 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Hello everyone, there seem to have been some misunderstanding. I began the page as a project and the information currently on the page is completely wrong. I would like to delete the entire page because the information currently on is incorrect. Most of the people listed with the company where never employees of the company, and info tech never took over any corporate entities. The company is also not a lobby group. I apologize for the whole mix up, and I would grateful if this page could be deleted. I am trying to avoided damaging a good company image with faulty information.:- KHNY 3, October 2006 EST

• Might there be two "Infotech Strategies"? It is a rather vague and uninformative name to give a business, and that unfortunately seems to be the fashion these days. If there are two, the lobbying business is much likelier to be the one worthy of an article. At any rate, a consensus seemed to be developing to delete the networking or consultancy business and keep the lobbying business article. If there are in fact two, the article needs to be revised to say so, use the correct logo. If both have some evidence of notability (WP:CORP) so that both should be kept, and a neutral, encyclopedia style article (no advertising) can be written about yours, this is a job for a Wikipedia:disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• No I'm sure they're the same. "We help our clients develop legislative and regulatory agendas to support their public policy and business goals, develop long-term relationships with policymakers, and participate in the development of government policy at the highest levels."[3](emphasis mine). How is this not lobbying?

"Efforts to influence legislation by influencing the opinion of legislators, legislative staff and government administrators directly involved in drafting legislative proposals"[4] or "Lobbying"[5]. They're a public relations and lobbying firm. Of course, its hidden behind a lot of weasel and buzzwords. The fact that the company has spent millions speaks for itself. The article you wrote KHNY even included "Outreach to Decision Makers" What decision makers are we talking about here? "Infotech Strategies also help’s its clients develop long-term relationships with policy makers" is probably the most clear cut indication of the company's intention to lobby, just on behalf of companies that hire them. --Kevin_b_er 21:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The lobby thing is not the issue. The issue is does the information posted accurately portray the company? I just took a look their website and it all about technology and education. The company’s client list on their website does not include the clients listed on the posting. Are there two Infotech strategies?

• Delete. The creator of the page, KHNY, is now asking that it be deleted. Because of WP:SPAM and the tone of the article, I would have suggested that it be deleted in any case. This group is hardly so important that the encyclopedia is incomplete without it. Especially when it's so hard to verify the information. EdJohnston 20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. KHNY created this page, and he/she says that the information is full of errors, now he/she wants it removed....then lets remove it. Why risk Wikipedia image with "what maybe wrong information" or "two different companies" I edited the page because the only correct information I see is the company's name and locations
  • Actually, the whole article (now that I reverted your changes) is fully sourced, and it seems clear that there is a company called Infotech Strategies that the article accurately (and surely incompletely) describes. This discussion tries to determine whether the company that this article describes is something that the encyclopedia should write about, nothing more. Zocky | picture popups 20:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note to the closing admin: Many of the delete votes above are for the initial version of the article, out of which only the infobox and one sentence remain. Zocky | picture popups 23:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Now if the niche is a firm that employees well connected ex politicos, then maybe. Just why is this notable? Vegaswikian 04:05, 8 October 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.