Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ironworks Consulting

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 speedy delete (CSD G7) – Gurch 18:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ironworks Consulting

This company fails WP:CORP and may be spam. Their only news coverage is a bunch of press releases. There's nothing in the first 40 google results.--Chaser T 05:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this is spam. I created this page simply to detail this consulting firm. It is not an advertisement masquerading as an article, and the text maintains a neutral point of view. While I cannot currently find information to support compliance with WP:CORP, this is a major company that, due to its nature, has little public mention (e.g., Google results). However, its development on major online presences such as www.cancer.org add support for this article's existence. Mgiuffrida 05:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'll accept for the moment that your intention was not to create a spam article. The AfD runs for five days, so you should have plenty of time to find sources. Even if it gets deleted, a friendly admin would probably undelete it upon later presentation of appropriate sources. If you can provide some stats or evidence to backup your argument about the company's size, I will reconsider the nom.--Chaser T 08:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Regardless of whether or not the article is spam, it fails WP:CORP hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even by assuming good faith, it clearly fails WP:CORP. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• You're right. This company will never cease to fail the "rough guidelines" at WP:CORP unless it is made public. None of the mentioned lists (Fortune, Forbes, etc.) include private companies that have no stock market indices. If these guidelines must be strictly, objectively adhered to at all costs, then I concede - please close this discussion as soon as possible and get this over with. However, I still believe this is a case (like so many others ) where "non-notability" is not a truly valid criterion for deletion. Consider that this is not spam, vanity, etc.; that this aricle was created to give information (that I certainly would have liked to have earlier), not to make an object more famous; and that besides "non-notability" according to guidelines that cannot possibly apply to companies like these (no significant online/Google presence is directly, positively associated with its importance?), no other reason to delete this article has been given. This article does currently or can in the future provide information that is not available elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as who was responsible for the websites of major, notable companies. The potential for crosslinks when appropriate strengthen the notability of the article. Mgiuffrida 17:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As a developer for a consulting company (not listed in Wikipedia) which has also developed the websites for many major notable companies, my personal opinion is that no one cares who built the websites. There are thousands of companies building websites and listing them would generally serve no purpose other than advertising. Fan-1967 01:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:CORP per above. Fan-1967 01:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Fine. Delete as soon as possible please. Mgiuffrida 03:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• That qualifies as Speedy Delete per author request (CSD G7). Article has been so tagged. Fan-1967 16:20, 16 July 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.