Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stroud Consulting

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. Cirt (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stroud Consulting

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

This is a promotional article that fails to meet the primary notability requirements of WP:ORG. I find no matches in Google News for "Stroud Consulting Inc" and references in the article are either self published or the report by Consulting Magazine. Consulting Magazine alone does not constitute significant coverage in secondary sources. Ash (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do a search for "Stroud Consulting" without the Inc and you will get some hits, but probably not enough ones from reliable sources to save the article. I also tried a search for Stroud Marblehead (no quotes - first name of company name plus the name of the community where it is based) and didn't get anything useful. I mention this only to offer hints as to better ways to search, not to argue that the company is notable. - Eastmain (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the basis of the references, I think that notability has been established. - Eastmain (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see four current references. Two are Consulting Magazine as mentioned in the nomination, the Salem News reference just points back to the Consulting Magazine report and the Industry Week article appears tangential as it quotes a couple of Stroud's consultants without saying anything to establish notability of the organization itself.—Ash (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete best small firm to work for is not notable. Relative importance in the industry is relevant to notability DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an operations management consulting firm that the general public is unlikely to be aware of. Receiving a mutual admiration award from a "Consulting Magazlne" provides no notability, given that such a magazine is likely to have limited circulation and interest outside the consulting trade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

though I agree with deleting, that is not a good reason. We cover more than consumer businesses, and business firms that cater to other businesses can be equally notable. The general public" is not the standard, but rather being known and notable in their field of operation. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in my opinion, the article's subject does not satisfy WP:CORP. Winning some minor awards, to me, does not indicate enough notability to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:35, 11 January 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.