Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalberg Global Development Advisors

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 no consensus. This was a tricky one; if we were simply counting votes, this would be a clear delete. However, most of the arguments here seem to be focusing on the paid editing thing. As of now, the fact that the author may or may not have been paid to write an article is not a reason to delete said article. I personally feel as though paid editing goes totally against several Wikipedia policies, but as there is no community consensus on it as of yet I feel we can't use it as a rationale in AfDs. Those calling for the article to be kept mention that the article was once a GA, has been cleaned up, and can be worked on. This shows that this article was once considered fairly high quality, and that there is room for improvement and a desire to do so. For that reason, I'm giving the keep arguments a little more weight than the deletion side, and closing this no consensus. If you have a problem with this closure, please feel free to talk to me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalberg Global Development Advisors[edit]

Paid insertion into Wikipedia. Self promotion. More information on the spam/advertisement by banned Zithan (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paid_editing#Statement_by_Ha!. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has a long history, and is even a Good Article. If some content on the page itself is problematic then why not be bold and simply remove it or otherwise edit it? Ω (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly only primary sources, weak refs YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it was paid for, but looking at the refs, it seems notable enough. It's also been cleaned up somewhat. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: On the one hand, this is more notable than the local radio stations that wiki lists by default, and their projects of more general interest than a local DJ's program format. But, the sources sited hardly establish notability and this is more a directory listing than an encyclopedia entry. The sources are self-cites, directories, maybe a PR about a donation or, and things like contractor reports. It is possible, if written by a PR firm, they simply don't understand the target audience. Perhaps if someone could dig up some dirt or real notability sources that would help. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I don't have much sympathy for paid editing, this particular article is well sourced, and its subject appears to be notable. Laurent (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources were used six times! What can we do now? Probably delete the present version. Alexius08 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The case for notability is not strong: in the lead article, I see trade publication coverage of their minor award, unlikely to be well known outside the development consulting industry, if there; and appearances on various lists. Even if this non-consumer consulting business were notable, the obvious conflict of interest makes all of these articles read like blatant advertising, and they all share the problem of evasive abstraction and glittering generalities that's typical of the tone of spammy articles about non-consumer businesses and their personnel:

Founded in 2001, the company specializes in issues relating to global development and globalization. The company serves clients in the public, private and non-profit sectors. Dalberg coordinates several public–private partnerships and international commissions.

Dalberg claims expertise in the domains of: access to finance, education, global health, corporate engagement, energy and environment, economic policies, agriculture, conflict and humanitarian aid, and strategy and performance.

Allowing any of these articles to stay means allowing misconduct to achieve its intended goal. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Cirt ,YellowMonkey and Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön.Clearly POV by pushing by Paid account.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dalberg Global Development Advisors/1 article also reviewed as to whether it should remain GA YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and edit considerably. I think his firm probably is notable. Sources are weak, but the Financial Times article shows they consider him reliable. DGG (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well as salt, burn and nuke - this is pure PR. The Financial Times mention is essentially self written, i.e. they were hired by the FT to write an article. Smallbones (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all POV pushing by paid account. Aditya ^α _ß 17:54, 22 June 2009 (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.