Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watson Wyatt Worldwide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep, with a reminder to include some of the found sources into the article itself. --Tikiwont 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Watson Wyatt Worldwide
No references; the fact that a parent company is old doesn't transmit notability to it, either. Created by, in all likelihood, a spammer. Biruitorul 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Currently reads like it's from a company brochure. Needs secondary references. Renee 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There are no inline references, but the article is sourced to the company's annual report and 10-K filings. The article may have been created by a spammer, and I know that it has been edited by an employee who cut and pasted from the company's website (I reverted her edits), but the company is notable. On October 13, The New York Times called it "one of the country’s leading compensation consulting firms".
They were in the middle of a scandal of sorts regarding executive compensation Pressing for Independent Advice From Consultants Panel to Look at Conflicts in Consulting Subpoena for Advisers on Salariesand pension consulting Actuaries Under Scrutiny On Pension Fund Pacts.
It's a little hard finding articles about the firm per se, but their research and surveys are widely cited. I'll find some substantial news coverage about the firm itself.
Full disclosure: I'm a former employee. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)- More coverage in secondary sources:
- Thao Hua, Watson Wyatt retools amid staff exodus, industry shift, Pensions & Investments, 2006-02-20.
- SARAH VEYSEY, Watson Wyatt sued for alleged negligence, Business Insurance, March 2005.
- Watson Wyatt and the ABCs of going public, Consulting Magazine, April 2001.
- Watson Wyatt plans an IPO; A first among benefit advisers, Business Insurance, November 1999. (This may be a press release; I can't tell.)
- Jerry Geisel, WATSON WYATT ABANDONS WELLSPRING: STATE STREET OWNS OUTSOURCING UNIT, Pensions & Investments, 1998-03-09.
- Joel Chernoff, WYATT, WATSON JOIN FORCES; ALLIANCE SEES PROSPECTS FROM MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES, Pensions & Investments, [[1995-04-03].
- Watson Wyatt Worldwide at Answers.com has the names of more articles, some of which are not available on the web
- Most of these are trade journals, but as the bylines indicate, they are not reprints of press releases. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- More coverage in secondary sources:
- Keep The article makes clear claims of notability (oldest actuarial firm, etc.) and provides sources, albeit not inline, to support an article that passes the Wikipedia:Notability standard. This AfD seems to have been created by a spammer. Alansohn 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Was that comment a joke? Because if not, I'd ask you to keep WP:CIV in mind, and bring proof of my ever having spammed Wikipedia, or else withdraw your insult. Biruitorul 12:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't call people spammers, you do. But in retrospect, creating a laundry list of AfDs with no apparent research done on the article's subjects (in violation of the mandate in Wikipedia:deletion policy to edit and improve articles before starting AfDs) seems a great deal like spam. Alansohn 05:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously someone who makes four contributions to Wikipedia, of which three are an advertisement and one a link to that advertisement, is a spammer, so your attempt to insinuate that I have made unjustified insults is reprehensible. I used my well-considered judgment to nominate for deletion a group of articles I believed to be spam. If you can show how I -- I, who am trying to delete spam -- am a spammer (per WP:SPAM, not your own definition), please go ahead. Otherwise I ask that you withdraw your insult. Biruitorul 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the content of the article, without trying to read into the intent of its creator, and you'll be far better off. Try to learn about your responsibilities under Wikipedia:deletion policy that requires you to perform due diligence to improve an article before the mad dash to AfD. Try doing a search in Google and in some of the news databases before jumping to conclusions on notability. Research the myriad of tags that can be applied to request others to improve an article, if you are unable to fulfill your obligations as an editor. No matter how poorly-written an article is, an AfD should be the absolute last step in the process, not a dumping ground for a series of articles you don't like. Alansohn 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- First, you're treating this as if I'm a head of state about to commit troops to war, or a judge about to sentence a convict to death. This isn't such a momentous occasion: at worst, a couple of pages about some random enterprises filled with expense-account-fed masters of the universe get deleted off a website, and recreated when they're ready to be. The world doesn't stop spinning. Of course, I'm quite committed to the Wikipedia project, but do let's keep some perspective. Second, I see you've dropped the "spammer" claim. Good. I am, at worst, being disruptive, but I'd strongly contest that too. Third, the identity of the creator does matter a great deal if it's a company promoting itself, which is not allowed here. Finally: I trust the AfD process. If an article turns out to be favoured for retention, so be it, but it's not the end of the world my nominating it. Biruitorul 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- The AfD process is inherently disruptive. As you have described yourself, many nominators just throw articles up for AfD to see what sticks, after all "it's no big deal". That's why Wikipedia:deletion policy exists, to make clear to folks such as yourself -- who are indifferent to the process of building consensus -- that you have an obligation to perform due diligence to improve an article before the mad dash to AfD. You have failed on that front. To so cavalierly acknowledge that you just might be violating WP:POINT through your actions demonstrates that this may very well not be a good faith effort to improve this encyclopedia, but simply an effort to punish and disrupt. Alansohn 16:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, the AfD process is not inherently disruptive, provided nominations are made in good faith, as all mine are. I'm quite familiar with consensus-building, so I'd rather not be tarred with that brush ("indifferent to the process of building consensus"), thank you very much. You keep pushing this notion of a "mad dash". It's not - none of these articles, to my recollection, is newer than May 2007. Since I contend that the subjects of these articles are inherently non-encyclopedic, I am under no obligation to improve them, only to call for their deletion. (Note the policy says "If the page can be improved...") And no, I never admitted to being disruptive (in any case I'm not accountable to you) - I said that at worst I might be accused of disruption, a charge I'd vigorously contest. But I'm not being disruptive, just making an effort to cleanse Wikipedia of what I see as spam. These continued baseless accusations have grown tiring. Biruitorul 21:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- The AfD process is inherently disruptive, particularly when it is abused by individuals who fail to exercise their basic responsibilities under Wikipedia:deletion policy to research an article, and edit it to improve it, before considering an AfD. You violated this policy when you failed to fulfill your obligation. It is clear that you have no support for your baseless and false claim that is "spam" and I have more than grown tired of such abuse of Wikipedia policy . Alansohn 06:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- For the AfD process, an officially-sanctioned method, to inherently disruptive, it would have to be in violation of WP:POINT. That's obviously illogical: the community wouldn't endorse a process, used dozens of times a day, that violates one of its own guidelines. Because I consider the articles I nominate to be unsalvageable, I have no responsibility to improve them, as per the "If the page can be improved..." clause. I absolutely believe this article, for instance, is spam, based on its tone and referencing problems, though reasonable men like Malik Shabazz may disagree. Please stop attempting to put me on trial: if you think I've committed a policy violation, report me to WP:ANI and get it over with. Biruitorul 14:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The AfD process is inherently disruptive, particularly when it is abused by individuals who fail to exercise their basic responsibilities under Wikipedia:deletion policy to research an article, and edit it to improve it, before considering an AfD. You violated this policy when you failed to fulfill your obligation. It is clear that you have no support for your baseless and false claim that is "spam" and I have more than grown tired of such abuse of Wikipedia policy . Alansohn 06:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, the AfD process is not inherently disruptive, provided nominations are made in good faith, as all mine are. I'm quite familiar with consensus-building, so I'd rather not be tarred with that brush ("indifferent to the process of building consensus"), thank you very much. You keep pushing this notion of a "mad dash". It's not - none of these articles, to my recollection, is newer than May 2007. Since I contend that the subjects of these articles are inherently non-encyclopedic, I am under no obligation to improve them, only to call for their deletion. (Note the policy says "If the page can be improved...") And no, I never admitted to being disruptive (in any case I'm not accountable to you) - I said that at worst I might be accused of disruption, a charge I'd vigorously contest. But I'm not being disruptive, just making an effort to cleanse Wikipedia of what I see as spam. These continued baseless accusations have grown tiring. Biruitorul 21:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- The AfD process is inherently disruptive. As you have described yourself, many nominators just throw articles up for AfD to see what sticks, after all "it's no big deal". That's why Wikipedia:deletion policy exists, to make clear to folks such as yourself -- who are indifferent to the process of building consensus -- that you have an obligation to perform due diligence to improve an article before the mad dash to AfD. You have failed on that front. To so cavalierly acknowledge that you just might be violating WP:POINT through your actions demonstrates that this may very well not be a good faith effort to improve this encyclopedia, but simply an effort to punish and disrupt. Alansohn 16:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- First, you're treating this as if I'm a head of state about to commit troops to war, or a judge about to sentence a convict to death. This isn't such a momentous occasion: at worst, a couple of pages about some random enterprises filled with expense-account-fed masters of the universe get deleted off a website, and recreated when they're ready to be. The world doesn't stop spinning. Of course, I'm quite committed to the Wikipedia project, but do let's keep some perspective. Second, I see you've dropped the "spammer" claim. Good. I am, at worst, being disruptive, but I'd strongly contest that too. Third, the identity of the creator does matter a great deal if it's a company promoting itself, which is not allowed here. Finally: I trust the AfD process. If an article turns out to be favoured for retention, so be it, but it's not the end of the world my nominating it. Biruitorul 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the content of the article, without trying to read into the intent of its creator, and you'll be far better off. Try to learn about your responsibilities under Wikipedia:deletion policy that requires you to perform due diligence to improve an article before the mad dash to AfD. Try doing a search in Google and in some of the news databases before jumping to conclusions on notability. Research the myriad of tags that can be applied to request others to improve an article, if you are unable to fulfill your obligations as an editor. No matter how poorly-written an article is, an AfD should be the absolute last step in the process, not a dumping ground for a series of articles you don't like. Alansohn 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously someone who makes four contributions to Wikipedia, of which three are an advertisement and one a link to that advertisement, is a spammer, so your attempt to insinuate that I have made unjustified insults is reprehensible. I used my well-considered judgment to nominate for deletion a group of articles I believed to be spam. If you can show how I -- I, who am trying to delete spam -- am a spammer (per WP:SPAM, not your own definition), please go ahead. Otherwise I ask that you withdraw your insult. Biruitorul 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't call people spammers, you do. But in retrospect, creating a laundry list of AfDs with no apparent research done on the article's subjects (in violation of the mandate in Wikipedia:deletion policy to edit and improve articles before starting AfDs) seems a great deal like spam. Alansohn 05:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Was that comment a joke? Because if not, I'd ask you to keep WP:CIV in mind, and bring proof of my ever having spammed Wikipedia, or else withdraw your insult. Biruitorul 12:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The nominator has indeed made a bunch of questionable nominations, and has been liberal in applying the words "spam" and "advertising" to full-fledged articles about obviously notable companies; also insinuations that articles written by newbies are likely to be spam. Not all of the nominations are bad but many are and they deserve scrutiny. Many AFD cases get very little real discussion so there's a fairly high error rate of rubber stamp deletions of articles simply because they're nominated. For that reason excessive creations uf unwarranted AFDs can cause a lot of damage on Wikipedia. No need to name call or assume anything but good faith, though. Wikidemo 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- a) If my nominations are indeed "questionable", "excessive" and "unwarranted", and if they deserve "scrutiny", you are free to bring me up before ANI or the relevant disciplinary forum. I stand on my clean record of making good-faith deletion nominations.
- b) The fact that a company is notable does not preclude the possibility of spam being written about it; per WP:CSD, spam may be deleted on sight. Such deletion does not prejudice against the recreation of an article in NPOV form.
- c) No, not all articles written by one-hit editors (as opposed to newbies) are spam, but it's much harder to write spam about a mountain, a turtle species or a long-dead bishop than it is about a present-day large corporation whose main purpose it it to make money, especially as such enterprises are known to advertise here. And that is the case with this and other articles I've nominated. Biruitorul 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Since reliable sources telling of notability are easily found - no reason to delete. --Allefant 08:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as company is listed on a public stock exchange, and there is substantial secondary sources out there. Comments by Alansohn are not supported by any evidence, as article is defective as nominated.--Gavin Collins 10:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep NYSE and large business. this does seem in fact to be the actual continuation of the oldest accounting firm. Personally, I'd solve some of these debates by including all the 2700-odd NYSE listed companies. WP has room enough. DGG (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- That does sound like a good idea. Maybe a new category for those? Biruitorul 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious keep. Wikidemo 14:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
