Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of management consulting firms (2nd nomination)

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. (Non-admin closure) d m z 03:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of management consulting firms

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam magnet. Alleged "list" contains full stub articles for each and every entry. If kept, this list needs SERIOUS pruning of each and every description to a single brief sentence describing specific area(s) of practice and geographic area served. Alternatively, a wikitable would allow for this information to be displayed in a non-prose ( and non-spam!) fashion. WuhWuzDat 16:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Previous AfD nomination rationale was that the article was duplicative with its associated category, and didn't contain any additional information. Now that additional information is added, it is being nominated again for having too much information. The article is undoubtedly very ugly and requires major cleanup, however the concept of the list is legitimate and therefore deletion is not the answer in this case. SnottyWong ^speak 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I agree that the data could be more concise and better organized, deletion is not the best route to achieve that result. Cleanup tags would be sufficient; or, better yet, cleaning up the content or converting it into a wiki-table (as the nom also suggested) would be more productive routes. The existing basic structure appears to meet WP:LIST. Additionally, the argument of the list being a spam magnet seems to be mitigated by the list having clear inclusion criteria that all of the firms listed at this time are meeting WP:CORP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom has made a very WP:Pointy nomination after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. The 1st AfD was a Keep (withdrawn nomination) once the article was improved and original concerns about spam addressed. The article in its present form has been maintained (notable entries added and non-notable entries removed) by several editors since the first AfD. The argument that the list entries are WP:SPAM is not valid as 1) all non-notable entries are routinely removed by editors and according to WP:SPAM, …However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities. And 2) since all the list entries are notable entities and the expanded information is merely an extrapolation of content in the main articles, how can they be considered Spam? As for the existence of expanded data associated with each entry, this is perfectly allowable and encouraged by WP:AOAL. This article complies fully with WP:List and WP:CLN and has a track record of being maintained in compliance with WP guidelines and policies. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It list all the management consulting firms notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and link to those articles, while also giving a brief mention of what they are. And this information all has references to back it up. Its far more useful to list some information about them, instead of just listing their name since it'd be meaningless without a summary. Dream Focus 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only value I can see for this article is a promotional one. Unless we want to make a big step toward "WP yellow pages"... having a cat for those firms serves the purpose of information well enough. TMCk (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wants this list, please reformat it as a table with an objective set of criteria for what information is of encyclopedic value (location, number of offices, number of staff, year established, ...). Stuff like this is rubbish: "focusing on strategic and operational CEO-agenda concerns", "stated mission ...", "said to be the largest consulting firm". Deletion is the only way to clean this up because there has already been an edit war resulting in the current promotional and unmaintainable fluff. Johnuniq (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vetting your statement and link the article in question here seems to be nothing more than a coat rack.TMCk (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use a great deal of editing but I believe the page is salvageable. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How? Could you clarify a bit?TMCk (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was perhaps a bit brief. The list needs editing and formatting, but I don't think there's any underlying problem that warrant deletion. The list itself is reasonable and can aid in navigation. The main reason for delete seems to be spam problems, but they can be dealt with as needs be, either by removing spam items, or AfDing actual spam pages, etc. There also seems to be some sort of content dispute over how much/what information should be associated with each item, but I don't believe that warrants deletion here. The only way I see that being a deletion reason is if no one comes forward after some time to fix the article, and I don't believe we've reached that point. Most of the content problems could probably be fixed by ripping out much of the text and reformatting everything as a table with name, countries, awards(?), target clientele, etc. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 05:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for extending your rational.TMCk (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator's objection seems to be the amount of detail provided for each entry. This is not a reason to delete as the entries can obviously be edited by ordinary means to make them briefer. The discussion of this matter on the article's talk page seems inadequate. Bringing an editing dispute of this kind to AFD is improper per WP:SK #2.4, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course.". See also the deletion process which emphatically states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". And note that there are numerous featured lists with details and text provided for each entry such as List of castles in Cheshire. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "the amount of detail provided for each entry" is or should be in any way related to either keep or delete the list and neither should be an edit dispute determine the course of this AFD.TMCk (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all objections noted by the nominator are content related, which should be dealt with via normal editing and negotiation and dispute resolution as needed. I have never seen an AFD which amounts to "I don't like how this list is formatted". This is in now way the domain of AFD. Be bold, fix it. If someone objects, work it out on the talk page. --Jayron32 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination has no validity at all. Management consulting firms are obviously notable, listing them is sensible. Issues with spam can be dealt with by normal editing. WuhWuzDat seems to be unaware of WP:BEFORE and needs a good trouting for making this kind of nomination. Fences&Windows 12:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly needs tidying up, but this is a valid list. pablo 19:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, but if no one cleans up that mess within the seven days of this AFD it's a "no go" as the article stands now and after no "keepers" are working on it, this is definitely a delete candidate which can be reinstated when ready. I took OSborn's comment above as a serious reconsideration when writing this; So yes, keeping it as a plain list would be acceptable but since it isn't that it has no merit to stay alive for now. There is no edit/improvement to the article as of now. Should that change I might change my mind and "vote". If not there is no wp-reason to keep it after the seven days have passed.TMCk (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree; this process is not about how shite an article may be, (and this is not the most woeful of articles by a long way) but about whether it should exist at all. pablo 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pablo ... this AfD is a question on if the article should exist. Once that's established (or even concurrently, actually) a discussion can take place on the article talk page on the best format for improving the article (if trimmed text, or if a wiki-table - and if a table, what elements/columns should be part of the inclusion criteria for list entries). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. It is altogether appropriate to list the notable firms that have WP articles, as for any other line of business. I think the problem is including the description of the firms. That's not our style--our thoroughly established way of doing these is to list the articles, and then there's a link to the articles for further information. The only need to say anything more is when it is a question of identification nor clarity, or the exceptional case that a firm that is clearly notable doesn't have an article yet, and there's a need to add a few words and a reference to show why it is worthy of having the article written. We could have decided to write our list article like this, but we have not done so. If necessary, this will have to go to dispute resolution, but I think that anyone insisting on the content as it is should think again, because I think there would be essentially unanimous opinion to the contrary. Removal of articles that are written improperly is not the appropriate response, but it seems that as the system actually works here we have no really adequate way for calling attention to this except AfD. RfC isn a case like this is a little excessive, and nothing else seems to get enough attention. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the firms listed probably are not really notable, or rather, not really significant; "notability" tends to break down in the face of publicity departments. Where PR is a problem, notability needs to be read very narrowly. These businesses are the sort of thing that should never have individual articles to begin with.

I agree that the text describing most of these firms is floridly non-neutral, and that almost all of the text should go. Almost every single one of these entries is making unreferenced claims to being "global" or "international", and more than one are "most prestigious" or a "leader". In short, almost every entry is full of bullshit. Like the nominator, I suspect that it may take more time or energy to police this from spam than it may be worth.

But when you're dealing with an overcrowded field of publicity hungry businesses like this, an overview article is a better way to handle this than a series of individual stubs or spam articles about each one. I think we should strip this down like the nominator had tried, agree on the sorts of things that can be added (location, date of foundation) while insisting on genuinely neutral third party sources for any claims of global leadership and similar twaddle. And we should look very carefully at each of the linked articles, and delete and salt any that contain spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that spam is a serious problem, & I feel towards it just as you do (in fact, there's currently a post on my talk page saying I've been too hasty to speedy a spammy article--and they're probably right). Obviously, articles about firms whose very purpose is public relations need to be watched carefully. I fully support the standard that the criterion for inclusion is a list like this is having a Wikipedia article or being obvious qualified for one, & I watch a few similar lists for the purpose of removing listings for those that do not. But if there is an article, the only way to judge their suitability for Wikipedia is one at a time, at AfD for each underlying article. Since the criterion of having a Wikipedia article is so easy to watch for, such a list is not very difficult to patrol. In fact, a list like this it provides a rather easy way of spotting the introduction of unjustifiable articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category:Management consulting firms is a better way to keep this list. Wikipedia is not a directory, there's just too much potential for advertising, spam and other abuse. If this article is kept, I strongly suggest it at least be semi-protected to discourage new users from promoting firms they have a conflict of interest with. --§Pumpmeup 02:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if category is justified for firms in a type of business, then a list is also justified. One is not better than the other--they have complementary advantages--the category is populated automatically from the articles, but the list can give context. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per spam magnet as well as WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Also, a term like "management consulting firm" is so vague that every new startup will try to get on this page. I tag these types of articles (about "management consulting firm" companies, not this list) all the time; probably 20% of my speedy tags. While there are some cases for categories as well as lists to exist and overlap, I do not feel this is one of them. — Timneu22 · talk 16:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those "some case" are the standard way for almost everything, & we have this for every sort of business. I find it much easier to watch for the insertion of red links in lists, than check new articles in a category. It;s only a spam magnet the sense that it serves to pull out the spam where we can see it and get rid of it. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The general consensus seems to be that the description text does not add to the article. Per this, I have removed the description text from each entry. (Subsequent edits could reformat this as a proper table.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.