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.
del nonnotable, nonverifiable (i.e., promo). A whooping 8 google hits excluding wikipedia & mirrors. mikka(t) 01:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe redirect to Alchemy. Jkelly 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The list of hyperlinks on Talk:Alkhemi appeared to be a promising start for checking to see whether this company satisfied the WP:CORP criteria ... until I looked at the linked pages and found that not only did they give no information whatsoever about this company, over half of them didn't even mention the company at all. Further research turns up nothing about this company that isn't directly from the company web site or from its pseudonymous purported founder and CEO. Not only are the WP:CORP notability criteria not satisfied, the company is barely even verifiable. Indeed, the article says this outright ("alkhemi [...] is [...] relatively unknown outside it's [sic] network of clients"). There's no evidence that this company isn't simply a fiction created by one man, published on his web site, and mentioned wherever his autobiography is quoted; let alone evidence that this company is considered notable by other people. Delete. Uncle G 02:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas1917's modifications to the article mentioned below have not addressed any of the above points, and have provided none of the evidence that is required. The hyperlinks supplied below purportedly for verification are the very ones from the talk page, that provide no information about the company or that even don't mention it at all, that I mention above. Uncle G 17:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G --Anetode 04:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising, non-notable. Alex.tan 09:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn CLW 14:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the article text: "alkhemi does not publicise it’s work and is therefore relatively unknown outside it’s network of clients"; "alkhemi does not generally disclose or discuss in public its historical or current portfolio of assignments". Please give me a reason to believe that I would want to read an article about alkhemi -- otherwise, I can't help but vote Speedy Delete. -- llywrch 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the work to be very notable; from Copenhagen and Arhus (I am Danish myself) I know of the work to be ‘real’ so I am personally shocked to be in such a discussion. I have decided to follow my instinct and have completely rewritten the page, which will partly meet the objections lodged here but makes clearer why the page should be ‘in’ Wikipedia – others may revert my edits so please click on history! I made some comments in the discussion page previously. 'I strongly urge a re-read and invite ‘confreres’ in a constructive spirit for suggestions for WHERE this can now be placed'. In its professional circles alkhemi is considered a pioneer as it prepared the first ever integrated cultural plan for a capital city; also, cultural policy, planning and strategy nowadays is a blossoming field and it should not be only civil servants or technocrats who should know what work/actions are taking place. YOU may not wish to read about the work – but for others it is significant. I was able to have an enlightening and inspiring time reading Wikipedia guidelines. I can see that the subject matter is trapped between two stools (is this the right expression?) and that by the criteria of WP:CORP this article likely slips into the cracks. I recognise that the article could be in another category and maybe merged/moved – to what? Regards, Thomas Thomas1917 00:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The two mjor criteria for wikipedia inclusion are wikipedia:Verifiability and wikipedia:No original research (and of course, notability, i.e., why would people want to read the article). However well you rewrite the article, there will be no reason to believe what you say. No reputable third-party references - no artcile. mikka(t) 00:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after re-reading the article: subject matter not notable, sounds like advertising. It's not only about verifiability and no-original-research, it's also just the plain question whether the subject matters, and this does not - it sounds really like advertising. Peter S. 15:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attempting to pass off a single company as a "business practice." Just slick self-promotion. Marskell 10:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a fair point by Peter and Mika about why people would want to read the article! I disagree because there are many people who have been impacted by the work and information like this would be consulted if those interested could find it. At this point it is a shame that maybe people with expertise or interest in cultural management are not going to contribute to the discussion as I am not sure it would be ‘right’ to eliminate the page. I realise colleagues have not been able to see links for verifiability from reputable third-parties, so here are they. www.minority-report.dkwww.exart.dkwww.lld.dk, molodiez.org, www.nkdale.no. alkhemi/aladin’s work in creating the cultural strategy for London can be verified here; these links are from the government. www.london.gov.ukwww.london.gov.ukwww.london.gov.ukwww.london.gov.ukwww.london.gov.uk I also realise it is definitely in the ‘wrong’ section as many comments question whether alkhemi conforms to Wiki business criteria for inclusion. Thomas Thomas1917 10:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interested parties may also wish to look at aladin, an article concerning the founder of this company. (No comment is implied about the relevancy of this page, but the aladin article has been extensively (and very competently) rewritten and still sounds like a puff peice.) It may throw light upon this page. Eaglizard 14:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After reading aladin, I'm puzzled: are you implying that this article is a hoax, or that alkhemi was aladin's business before he decided to become an entertainer? -- llywrch 17:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. From this article (alkhemi): "Its standing in these particular fields is related to the successes its current leading light aladin had as a prime mover in London government between 2000-2004...". It's the same guy / company. Eaglizard 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point. I looks like Aladin is not notable neither: His credits are: Rarely performs, had some job for the city of London, is in a book that titled "the book of cool". The article, like Alkhemi, has probably been set up to gain exposure through wikipedia. I would definitely support a delete vote on that one as well. By the way: is there a way to prevent vote-stuffing by a determined individual who just creates a big mass of accounts? Because in those discussions I had, it felt like the author of those two articles is just crazy enough to even do that. Just a feeling. Peter S. 23:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only way to 'prevent' it is to pay attention to who votes, and what their edit history has been. The Admins apparently do a pretty fair job of it, too. Eaglizard 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that it was best for no page by this title; these discussions are problematic. It is of parochial interest (to Wikipedia enthusiasts) whether ‘alkhemi’ is listed. Of wider concern is the nature of comments, which border on the defamatory or libellous. But I am sure ‘alkhemi’ will persist for longer than the exchanges here! The knowledge of its work may not impinge this, online context but resonates in the ‘real’ world and last year in 2004 I was fortunate, even privileged, to view some of it in Arhus. I join with Thomas in wishing that the page is ‘kept’ while not endorsing some of the views expressed hereDelarouism 12:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On reviewing the various discussions I greatly regret having contributed. This page should be deleted immediately. It’s existence is giving rise to ‘ad hominem’ and uncalled for comments and is serving to give unwarranted importance to those making these. Delarouism 15:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the spirit of your concerns, but if we deleted every page that gave rise to ad hominem attacks we wouldn't have very many left! Hell, would we have any? lol Eaglizard 19:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the interested person instead of being paranoid addressed the major concerns expressed here, the article would live happily ever after. Acting offended means there is nothing more to do to defend the article. mikka(t) 19:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom & agree with Uncle G review of links asserting notability. If such a notable corporation, why no mention in business press, etc. Maybe a startup company that will get an article eventually, but looks nn. at this point.—Gaffταλκ 02:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just some quick points. It seems there is a need for a new page about cultural strategy or cultural planning and then these additional organisations can be noted: Charles Landry and http://www.comedia.org.uk/ , Mik Flood and Strategies for Art and Space and also Richard Crossland at http://www.ablconsulting.com . alkhemi is known very well to all of these and its principal of course ‘inaugurated’ the first ever integrated capital city cultural plan/strategy so it would easily be ‘fitted in’ in this context. Worldwide British experts are the leaders in this field as the arts and culture portfolio has been at cabinet level for a long time in their country. Although akhemi does not have the apparent corporate infrastructure of its colleagues it is unique and highly reputable in the field. Which is why the Nordic governments constantly invite its intervention and why in Denmark we know of it Delarouism 12:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, be bold - go ahead and write a small article. Account for all sides, don't dwell on the players or make it sound like an ad, but focus on the concept and why cultural strategy / cultural planning has done a difference to a lot of people. If it's an important subject, it might very well become a good article. If not, the wikipedians will give some small hints :-) Keep your head up, if you have some information to share that is truly interesting to lots of people, please go ahead and try it out. Cheers! Peter S. 22:44, 24 October 2005 (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.