Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consula

Consula

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

A small and newly founded consultancy with sub-2 million euros in revenue seems unlikely to be notable. There do not seem to be strong secondary sources available. TheGrappler (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there was a financial criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are many many other examples of entries which appear to meet the requirements but which are also fairly new micro-businesses. Please ensure that, if there is in fact a financial criteria element, that this is made more clear in the guidance. The secondary sources include mainstream media as well as matters of note relating to the cutting edge nature of the firm. I was not aware that mainstream media was not a sufficient secondary source. There are many many examples of entries which have fewer, less mainstream sources for entries. Please ensure that, if there is in fact a requirement for a specific number of sources and that those sources have to contain a specific density of graded media, that this is made more clear in the guidance. I don't personally see this as being an issue. The entry meets the guidance criteria for objectivity, the entry relates to a business which has achieved notoriety in the UK as referenced, so it seems to me that the issue is less of guidance and more of subjective interpretation and taste. I was under the impression Wikipedia was open to everyone, not restricted to a specified class of pre-approved entries, as appears to be the logical conclusion given the reasons cited for deletion. Please ensure that, if there is in fact a pre-requisite discriminatory criteria element, that this is made more clear in the guidance. Alternatively, if adding additional sources would be welcomed, please confirm and I will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincallan (talk • contribs)

There isn't a financial criterion, but it is unusual for very small companies to be notable unless there is something very distinctive about them. (An essay on this subject is at WP:MILL.) From WP:CORP: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". Note that this excludes press releases (even if reprinted in independent media) and articles in which "the company ... talks about itself". The required depth of coverage is extremely difficult for a minor company to meet. TheGrappler (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]