Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximus Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep Mr.Z-man 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maximus Inc.

Maximus Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Tagged since April 2007 for sources and references, this minor stub article fails notability criteria Trident13 14:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. This desperately needs sourcing and expanding, but I'm pretty sure it qualifies as notable, given how many governments use their services to manage things like child support. Pinball22 14:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep. A lot of governments use a lot of different companies for a lot of different things. It does not make this company noteworthy. Appers to pass WP:N although the article still needs a lot of work. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 16:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Here's a few references that make me think it's probably notable... here's an article from BusinessWeek from 1999 saying "Maximus runs welfare-to-work programs for nearly a dozen states, and manages child-care and Medicare programs for dozens of local governments. If Maximus were a state, it would have the 29th-largest social-services caseload of all the states in the U.S." and it's in the Washington Post's 125 biggest companies in the D.C. area for 2007. Also, this article talks about it settling a $30M Medicaid fraud suit against it in July of this year, but then here's an article about the state of New York awarding it a contract to fight Medicaid fraud just this month. Pinball22 19:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources given above and found in Google News Archive indicate it passes WP:CORP and is even notable within its niche (although such things are transient by nature). This isn't a company that supplies the Pentagon with toilet paper, this is a consultancy that has privatization of public services as a major focus of its business, and as such is often connected to policy debates and blame/credit scenarios. --Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteSpeedy Delete as I can't see how this one line entry warrants an encylopedic entry. --Gavin Collins 14:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just because the article as it stands is an uninformative sub-stub doesn't mean that the subject isn't notable. Pinball22 22:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment True, but time of writing, this article does not assert notability, and there is no reliable and verifiable sources to support such an assertion.--Gavin Collins 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The sources I linked in my earlier post seemed quite reliable and verifiable to me... do you not think they support an assertion of notability? Pinball22 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment They are verifiable and reliable as you say, but they read like PR copy, and do not provide analysis or context, and fail to demonstrate notability. For a consultancy close to government, you would have thought there would be some secondary sources. They could be notable and keeping low profile, or they are just doing what they are paid to do.--Gavin Collins 11:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • They all mention problems the company has had and criticisms (especially the one about the lawsuit against the company), and I don't see how the Washington Post and Business Week could not be considered secondary sources, so they don't seem like PR pieces to me at all. Pinball22 14:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • But not in this article. Its too thin even for a reasonable stub. I would say deletion is on the cards, if not now, then someone else will prod it for want of content. --Gavin Collins 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand what you mean... are you saying that you agree the sources make it notable, but you want to delete the article anyway just because they haven't yet been added to the article? If so, that's not supposed to be how this works. If not, could you clarify what you do mean? Pinball22 15:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would suggest that sources have to be added to the article to provide evidence of notability; but one or two sources will be insufficient if the article itself has no content. In my view this article probably could be a speedy deletion. --Gavin Collins 14:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out the article does assert notability (by claiming the US Government as a significant client, so it's not a speedy candidate. Asserting notability and establishing notability, however, are two different things. --UsaSatsui 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

*Delete unless we can get some of those yummy, reliable secondary sources into the article. Just having a government for a client isn't enough.

    • And we have. Keep.--UsaSatsui 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability actually gets asserted and justified in the article. The article's not worth keeping if these justifications can only be found in AfD. SamBC(talk) 15:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep - notability now asserted and justified, I see no cause for deletion. SamBC(talk) 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've expanded the article with some of the references I listed above... what do people think about it now? Pinball22 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply - I have changed my nod to keep for now. One of your references is to a corporate description by the Washington Post. I really don't think that counts as they describe many, many different companies that are not worth noting here. However, the articles from Business Week and the other from the Washington Post are good references. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Great! The one that's a corporate description is included because the listing is as part of the Post 200, where they describe the biggest companies in the DC area. Maybe I should add the main listing part as well to make that clear? Pinball22 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If you're talking about improving the article, perhaps this should be done on the talk page. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 18:48, 28 September 2007 (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.