Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microeconomix

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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microeconomix

Microeconomix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

1 office, four employees, very few google hist (<500), no real assertion of notability other than the fact that it was the first economic consulting firm in paris (though founded only 5 years ago) AdamBiswanger1 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Microeconomix : well you can delete it if you think it should be. But as I saw that Nera or Lecg and other economic consulting firms had their own article in the section, I think it would be fair to delete them too... in this case, the categorie "economic consulting" should also be deleted... Best regards. Regarding the conflict of interest, indeed I am the ceo of Microeconomix but I think that the presentation fo microeconomix was as objective as other contributions in the same category.

I'll check out those other companies, but the ones you listed seem like pretty large companies with offices all over the world. AdamBiswanger1 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment: One of the arguments to avoid is known as other stuff exists, trying to justify one article because a similar article exists. I checked the history of those arts, but there's no obvious conflict of interest (one was created by a still-contributing editor who has over 500 edits; the other was created by a now-dormant editor who appears to have stubbed a number of articles). If you object to those articles, you're also welcome to contest them, just like pretty much everyone else.... Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

MicroeconomixOK, no problem. I should have take another name to create this article ;-). I don't understand the argument about the size of company and did not think wikipedia was only for big companies. If this is the case, then this article should indeed be deleted. But I understand that a category "economic consulting firms" or any other category related to firms could not be the purpose of wikipedia.It is a difficult debate to decide wether ant to what extent companies should be included. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your input-- if you'd like an idea for what Wikipedia's official stance is, check out this link: WP:ORG. AdamBiswanger1 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not so much about the size of the company (tho there appears to be people who participate AfDs using that as a basis), but more of a matter of notability and verifiability. There are guidelines located at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and also the general notability at WP:NOTE. There's probably some other stuff, too, but I think for this discussion, notability is the main point. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • delete vanispamcruftvertisement. Pete.Hurd 20:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Yngvarr and Pete.Hurd. Violates virtually every core policy - WP:N, WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. Bearian 00:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unknown corporation, no sources to establish notability. --Kudret abiTalk 00:57, 26 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.