Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brailsford & Dunlavey

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brailsford & Dunlavey

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

An AfC submission, where the vast major of the sources in this article do not support, or even mention the subject. In 37 different sources, only one 17 year old news article comes close to passing WP:ORG. Most sources don't discuss the subject significantly if they discuss it at all. It is filled with non independent sources as well, either to there corporate website or to sources they are financially connected to. I have no idea how this got through AfC in its current state. I would also support speedily draftifing the article as well if other editors agree. (Note: Though it should not affect anything, the page creator is a disclosed paid editor who is acting within Wikipedia's policies.) Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft, unfortunately - Multiple searches found nothing particularly significant here, here and here. The article is neat and sourced but with closer examination it's not what it seems as the article could use better significant (and actually in-depth) sources for notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (I don't know what "draft" means.) This outfit is just not WP:Notable. Nobody is talking about it nowhere. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite having 37 some-odd sources, programmanagers.com is not reliable and many are press releases. If they are notable, it would be better-off with a disinterested editor starting from scratch. CorporateM (Talk) 16:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question The article suffers from citation bombardment, but are any of its sources suitable? If so, I would support returning the article to the draft space; if not, then there's nothing worth saving. Specifically:

The nominator suggests that this article in The Washington Post might count as one towards notabilty. Other editors (e.g. "Nobody ... nowhere") appear to disagree.
If this article in Washington Business Journal does not count towards notability, why not?
Is there a specific objection to this article in Sports Business Journal? It's also from publisher American City Business Journals, but seems intellectually independent from the above.
The oddly named programmanagers.com, being B&D's official website, is clearly not third party, cannot count toward notability, and should not be the source of the bulk of the content. But surely it can be a reliable source for certain information about the company, such as headcount and number of offices, no?

Worldbruce (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BOMBARDMENT with citations is just there to make it more notable than it seems. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2015 (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.