User talk:Sydneyconsulting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Sydneyconsulting, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

[edit] Article Name Sydney Consulting Corporation

A tag has been placed on Article Name Sydney Consulting Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 08:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Article name Sydney Consulting Corporation

Ok. So you are an Administrator. Why don't you go and look at the entry in the encyclopedia titled 'Management Consulting'. How is it precisely that a company like Accenture or Cap Gemini can get an article up (which is nothing more than a fact list about their company) so that their name can be mentioned under the entry (management consulting) but when I do it (with more meaning they they even attempted in the context of the article), the article is deleted. I considered the distinction I raised under types of consulting firm to be a real value add given the purile twaddle that was there before I arrived. I have introduced a really interesting, practical and important distinction to the types offered in the existing article. Just explain to me how they can be named and have supporting article and Sydney Consulting cannot. My point is that these larger firms all fit into the slot of 'report writers'. Where will you let someone tell the story about implementation and risk management? Is nobody worthy of a mention in that category. If you delete my reference to Sydney Consulting you should explain why the references to other firms are left to stand. Give it a try. I am exited to hear your reasoning cow girl.

Hi,
I've looked at the pages you've said. The reasons Accenture and Cap Gemini have an article is because they're one of the largest companies of their type in the world, as stated and referenced on their article page.
I did not delete the article because of the entries to the Management Consulting article, which may have been very valid, as you say. I deleted it because of the guidelines we have in place for these articles.
You see, whilst the company may meet the notability guidelines, the article didn't assert the notability of the subject. I have nothing against you or your company, and be assured that I am in no way biased.
If you can supply some external third party links to establish notability that conforms with these guidelines, then by all means the page can stay on Wikipedia.
I really hope that helped you. If you have more questions please feel to ask. Cheers- CattleGirl talk 10:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Management Consulting deletion

Dear cow girl, The overriding logic in your response was simply "size matters". Accenture and Cap Gemini are large so they have no problems getting third parties to write a lot of twaddle about what they do. A lot of this stuff is paid for directly or indirectly.

Do you know how the spin industry works? They buy academics, journalists and media and their marketing arms generate spin ad nauseum. Can I see the body of references that are relied upon by wikipedia to establish these gushing 'big guy' credentials for Accenture and Cap Gemini? Which articles exactly does the wikipedia rely upon to allow for example Accenture to enter the hallowed ground of 'notable'(for any other reason beyond size). Keep in mind the guidelines are specific about size NOT being and adequate reason per se. Where are the articles that assert a notable distinction relating to Accenture or Cap Gemini. Is all this notability about Accenture and Cap Gemini you assert simply anecdotal? Can you show that their inclusion is not simply because (a) they are large organisations and; (b) there are a LOT of articles relating to them? Please provide the references wikipedia relies upon to demonstrate their'notablility'. Surely the references relied upon are accessible to any editor of wikipedia? Remember, "encyplopedia content must be verifiable".

By the way, you are the first person I have heard describe themselves as 'objective' in about 25 years. If you have the time please explain what the word means. You must be quite young. Go and read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. You need a dose of relativism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydneyconsulting (talk • contribs) 06:30, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Hi,
If you want to know why I deleted the page according to policy, please read WP:NOTABLE. I have, actually, googled the page name, with minimal ghits ([1])- not enough to establish notability at this time. However, if you could show me some more coverage of the company, then I could review your request again.
It isn't of my interest how Accenture and Cap Gemini have so many third party references- the fact that they do, and fit our notability guidelines are enough. It does not matter whether they are paid for or not.
The size of the company does not matter. The fact that the company has been covered by a third party indicates notability (but of course, that depends on the source), and generally, if the company is covered by multiple sources, then they probably would be larger. That's not of my concern, just the fact that they are covered, and fit into our notability policy.
The references of these companies are readily available, in the references section. And on terms of coverage, a google search [2] shows plenty of it. The content in these articles are verifiable, but the other articles are not my concern.
If you can supply me with some more references, please do so and I will review your request again. Or, if you want you can always bring it to deletion review.
I said "be assured that I am in no way biased" and I stick by that. I have no doubt that you know what objective means, as do I, quite obviously by my choice of words. I have nothing to do with your company, I have nothing for or against the other companies you mentioned. I have never heard of them before now. And as for a dose of relativism, I'm not the one comparing yours to the other companies. In this case, it is actually me who is reviewing just your company- not the other ones. I honestly have no interests in the other company, the issue here is Sydney Consulting. Whether it is bigger or smaller than the other companies, it doesn't matter, it still may or may not fit into our notability criteria- which in this case, it doesn't, but as I said before, you can try deletion review.
I'm only here to help, and I ask that your next reply be more civil than the previous one. Thankyou, CattleGirl talk 09:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)