Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion Consulting

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. This has been open for nearly a month, and the time has come for a close. The consensus of non-sockpuppets, non-sockpuppeteers, and non-SPAs is clearly for deletion. If anyone wants to create a redirect at the title, you're welcome to do so. Deor (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Consulting

edit
Fusion Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company defunct since 2008. Little secondary coverage outside of press releases. Please note Fusion Consulting shares a similar name with Fusion Consulting, Inc., which uses a different logo. Blackguard 16:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for your comments User:AllyD. I will address each separately for thoroughness of the discussion.
1) Regarding your comment "Global Intelligence Alliance Group which already has appropriate brief coverage, including GIA Asia which was presumably the successor division". ==> There are numerous (likely many thousands) of companies which have are defunct (either due to acquisition, merger, or other causes) which are arguably invaluable components of wikipedia. I provide a few examples here:
"There is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content". Including this article which covers a notable topic (notability demonstrated below) will enrich and benefit readers with an interest in this industry. On the whole, the benefits of keeping this article far outweigh any benefits of deleting it. I would personally prefer to see the energy spent on further debate about this article expended on creating add'l well researched articles for other wikipedians and readers to benefit from.
2) Regarding your comment "While I am seeing the former firm's research papers having been quoted, evidence of coverage of the firm itself is not apparent" ==> The firm itself is inextricably tied to it's research papers. An analogue to exemplify: an author is notable if his/her work is notable. The same principle applies here. Moreover, the firm itself (not it's work) is referred to in multiple reliable and independent articles, namely:
  1. Vault.com [[1]]
  2. Consultancy.uk [[2]]
3) Regarding your comment "A couple of "best company to work for" awards is not evidence of notability" ==> The award in question and the company awarding it are widely known and very well regarded in the consulting industry. The company in question confers the awards annually, using a rigorous, objective and fact-based evaluation process (I know this because I have followed their rankings for many years, and my firm was previously evaluated by Vault.com). If one looks into the specifics of the award in question, one can only conclude that it supports notability. Moreover, and more importantly, the company in question has received coverage in the following 8 reliable and independent sources. Per wikipedia guidelines, that makes it notable. I show those below for easy reference:
  1. Asia Food Journal [[3]]
  2. Telecomasia.net [[4]]
  3. Consultancy.uk [[5]]
  4. Vault.com [[6]]
  5. HBO Asia [[7]]
  6. HBO South Asia [[8]]
  7. The Times of India [[9]]
  8. Marketing Magazine [[10]]

Newtonslaw40 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (no need to redirect) There are absolutely no reliable sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. This is definitely not notable. I am also unable to find reliable sources to verify the acquisition and stuff. In any case, I don't think we require a redirect here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest you further and carefully review my comments below, as well as each of the independent sources provided for the article. With those hard facts in hand, you will see the company very clearly satisfies these notability criteria WP:CORPDEPTH. Moreover, you mention "unable to find reliable sources to verify the acquisition and stuff" - I suggest you simply read the sources supporting the article, particularly the Consultancy.uk (a widely read industry website) which has independently covered the topic, I provide said source here for easy reference: [[11]]
Newtonslaw40 (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every single source contains a trivial mention. More importantly, many of the sources are not reliable. None of this satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The company clearly satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines for notability [(organizations and companies)]. As shown below, this company is covered by multiple sources which are unquestionably reliable and independent of the subject. Given the depth of coverage and the reliability of the sources in question (listed below, under point 2), there are in fact no fact-based grounds on which to state that this company is "not notable".
1) Wikipedia's notability guidelines are very explicit. They state as the Primary Criteria that "A company, corporation, ..., product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." The facts clearly show that this company satisfies this criteria.
2) Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines state the following regarding the Depth of Coverage of those sources: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." The company covered in the article has received coverage in the following 8 (i.e. multiple) reliable and independent sources:
  1. Asia Food Journal [[12]]
  2. Telecomasia.net [[13]]
  3. Consultancy.uk [[14]]
  4. Vault.com [[15]]
  5. HBO Asia [[16]]
  6. HBO South Asia [[17]]
  7. The Times of India [[18]]
  8. Marketing Magazine [[19]]
3) Wikipedia guidelines state the following regarding the Audience of those sources: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." If one does cursory research, each of those sources clearly have an international audience and wide readership within their industry segments.
4) The company in question is listed on the HBO corporate website -- on the the milestones page no less. HBO is a globally significant multi-billion dollar media company.
5) The company in question is mentioned 3 times in the HBO Asia wikipedia page. [[20]], further demonstrating that it is notable.

Newtonslaw40 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article does meet notability guidelines (can't argue that). Quite well written. Lots of defunct companies on wikipedia. I don't see why this one is different than other defunct companies on wikipedia which meet notability guidelines. Company has quite a number of acknowledgements in reliable media. And HBO mentions are impressive. Let's keep it.Mikiwaky (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Mikiwaky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Like my statements below, that's exactly the concern, simply stating other articles but not actually acknowledging and considering them, simply saying it "somehow" satisfies the notability but not either state how or at least incorporate the concerns and counter them sufficiently and clearly, is not the same thing as simply keeping, because that's not the case here and it's certainly not the solution. There is convincing from having "well written", "[it is not] different than other companies", "acknowledgements in media and mentions".... SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as all of these Keep comments are entirely questionable, from citing other articles as defenses to then actually citing trivial and unconvincing PR sources, we cannot auotmatically presume and accept an article simply because of that; there needs to be actual attention to the concerns acknowledge them, therefore if deletion is genuinely needed, as is in this case, that's the best option. I still confirm my PROD which is still applicable and is still clear and staunch with the concerns listed. I PRODed because this should've been deletion long ago, such blatant advertising, regardless of whatever, but the user who reviewed this long ago apparently had not considered it at all, as they were a new user. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics Talk→ Be a guest 09:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:A Train, which of these sources do you perceive to be terrible? From my perspective, the below ones are actually really solid (reputable, international, significant in their industries). It would be very helpful if you could explain specifically why you evaluate these as "terrible" sources?
  1. Asia Food Journal [[21]]
  2. Telecomasia.net [[22]]
  3. Consultancy.uk [[23]]
  4. Vault.com [[24]]
  5. HBO Asia [[25]]
  6. HBO South Asia [[26]]
  7. The Times of India [[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/HBO-Star-Plus-Asias-most-popular-channels-

Thanks, GreenMountainGate (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bon soir, GreenMountainGate. I'd be happy to go through those sources. Before we start, I note that you haven't called out half of the sources for the article, which is just as well because they're press releases and a LinkedIn page. I'll assume we all agree that those are not reliable sources, and thus terrible. So onto the rest.
The Asia Food Journal and Telecom Asia pieces are not articles about Fusion -- they're referencing a survey conducted by the firm. So that does not represent depth of coverage that would satisfy WP:CORP. The Consultancy UK piece never mentions Fusion Consulting once -- makes it difficult for use as a source for an article about Fusion Consulting. The Vault.com PDF and HBO websites are not reliable sources -- just as a refresher, Wikipedia defines a reliable source as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Finally, the Times of India link is a 404. So yes -- those are all terrible sources, I'm afraid. A Traintalk 20:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article meets notability criteria, it's backed by at least 7 reputable sources from what I can see, they're shown above but I show them here again. The company and it's work are actually on the milestones page of HBO -- that says a lot. If all of this ain't KEEP material, what is???? It would seem this is an straightforward Keep decision IF we stick to wikipedia rules. On a more general level, I must say, this article deletion process seems very odd. The comments supporting deletion are somewhat akin to character assassination (they are often fact less, broad opinions and often rely on the impossibility of proving a negative). It feels as though there is bias at work here to have this article removed as the facts supporting keep are very strong. I would welcome any opinions on this. Also, this is pure speculation, but could it be some editors are a using coordinated approach to article deletion by supporting one another rather than looking at the virtues of a given article? It seems this does happen as I learn more about the process on various deletion discussion pages. I can try to share some views on some of the above comments for further discussion and evaluation in the coming days when I have a free moment.
  1. Asia Food Journal [[27]]
  2. Telecomasia.net [[28]]
  3. Consultancy.uk [[29]]
  4. Vault.com [[30]]
  5. HBO Asia [[31]]
  6. HBO South Asia [[32]]
  7. The Times of India [[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/HBO-Star-Plus-Asias-most-popular-channels-

GreenMountainGate (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fusion_Consulting&oldid=1137864533"