Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princeton Consultants

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 of the debate was DELETE. The redlinked user discounted as usual, (particularly since one supposes that checking their website would make them seem notable, and misunderstands the meaning of a WP:RS), the WP:CORP assertions do seem to have been effectively challenged. -Splash^talk 00:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Princeton Consultants

Advert for non-notable consulting firm. | Klaw Talk 15:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this vanispamcruftisement. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This company does meet the guidelines for notability, in that this company "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Princeton Consultants has been featured twice in Consulting Magazine, and was also featured in the Careers section of U.S. News and World Report's 2002 Edition of Best Graduate Schools. - NSash 04:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. In my opinion, two mentions in a small, industry-specific publication do not meet those notability guidelines. Most companies would be notable if we used industry magazines to determine notability. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Being "featured in the Careers section" of a report on graduate schools doesn't sound like an in-depth discussion of this consulting firm, and more like being listed in a directory of firms appended to the report. What did this feature entail, exactly? Uncle G 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I checked out this company's website and in my opinion they seem to be legit and notable. I also agree that they meet the formal guidelines for notability. Nothing is said in the guidelines about the publications needing to be non-industry specific. JayG 17:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This user's second edit. Uncle G 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • True. But the WP:CORP criteria do address the point that the work be more than a mere glancing mention of the company in an article that deals with something else, or a simple business directory listing, or a routine business announcement. Uncle G 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I haven't found any evidence for this firm meeting the notability guidelines. --Spondoolicks 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this advertisement. Self-promotion does not add much to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.166.180 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 17 December 2005
• Comment exactly what in the article shows that this company meets citeria in WP:CORP? Vegaswikian 22:53, 17 December 2005 (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.