Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intouch Solutions

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. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intouch Solutions (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)

Promotional article on non-notable company - no real independant sourcing meeting WP:NCORP standards Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I'm the main author of the article, and I would like to discuss the deletion proposal for the following reasons: 1) Notability: a) the company has 600+ employees with offices outside the United States; b) it is worth 110m USD (other companies in the Category:Management consulting firms of the United States are worth less); c) it is quoted in specialistic reviews of the healthcare consulting sector (see further); d) it won several business sector awards 2) Promotionality: I tried to write the article in the most neutral way, by using the information contained in articles from acknowledged and independant media (Bloomberg, Adnkronos, and specialistic reviews for the healthcare advertising sector (MM&M, PMLive and MedADNews). In case you find that some passage lacks neutrality, could you please show me which one? I will be happy to further neutralize it. --Ferdinando Scala (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the points you've addressed make the company notability - being quoted or being worth "x" (or other companies also not being notable) or winning some business sector awards - what makes the company notable is in depth coverage, of which it doesn't appear to be have. In regards to promotionality, phrases "innovative solutions" and the entire philanthropy section, which repeats company promotion like "Intouch created a plan to honor Srinivas’ memory, to spread a message of unity, and to answer those questioning that yes, they belong." and does not have any real independant sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your suggestions. I deleted the phrases you indicated - indeed they were not in line with any Wikipedia policy about style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdinando Scala (talk • contribs) 12:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick review of online sources show that there is ample coverage in the news to surpass the general notabiiity guideline. While the content seems somewhat promotional in nature, it's hard to write an article about a firm that doesn't have such measures. At worst, this is an editing issue from an article started by a relatively inexperienced editor (at least in this particular type of article) and some simple collaboration should clean it up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will welcome any suggestion about improving the article.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have WP:NCORP is so that there's enough indepth coverage so that it is possible to write an article that isn't promotional Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a replacement for a corporate web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2018 (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.