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 'Deleted G7 - Author request ϢereSpielChequers 15:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherpa LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

The only claim to notability is being on a local Fast 50 list. I can not find substantial reliable sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, cannot find notability. Haakon (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sherpa LLC is also notable because it made the Inc. 5000 list in 2007 as number 952. Here is the link for for the article [1]. Is this considered a more appropriate source and would it allow the article to remain on Wikipedia? I have noticed a few of our competitors such as Kelly Services and Robert Half International have articles on Wikipedia with the same type of sources I referenced. Can you explain why my article was marked for deletion and those pages were not? Thank you for your time.--CShortt09 (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)CShortt09 — CShortt09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment Considering that reading over the Inc. 5000 inclusion criteria at [2] it suggests that any company can apply to make the list, and that only the top 500 even appear in print, unless this gets significant coverage in reliable secondary sources it still does not appear to be notable. It appears that to appear you just have to be in the top 5000 amount of revenue generated by those private companies that choose to extend their PR by applying. This doesn't appear notable to me unless there is significant reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Could you please comment on the question I posed above? What makes the references for Robert Half Robert Half International and Kelly Services Kelly Services any different? Also, Manpower International Manpower Inc.has a listing that has no references at all but is still not flagged for deletion. Our listing does not use any sales language and it seems like we are being discriminated against for being small and regional versus large and public based on the examples given. I'd be grateful for your assistance in doing whatever we need to do to make our listing correct...right now we feel like a "bitten newcomer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by CShortt09 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — CShortt09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete What makes someone else's references better than yours? They mightn't be. I'll look at the articles now and see if they fail to show any particular notability too. Articles can slip through the net.... On the whole, being large and public does tend to indicate more notability, because it usually means more history and references. As it stands, your article merely establishes existence. Top 50 growing companies? Well done. But is it really encyclopaedic notability? Peridon (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've just peppered Manpower with citation needed tags. They are claimed to have "over 4,100 offices in 82 countries", which now has 'citation needed' attached to it. Robert Half makes claims to fame. So do Kelly's, even though their referencing is lousy. They both have some, so I can't really use the 'unreferenced' tag Not found an appropriate one yet. Peridon (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You may want to refer to this page: Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS where it states, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article...Plenty of articles exist that probably should not...So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet." So if you would like to take up the notability of those other articles, it would be best to do so directly on those article's talk pages. It appears from rough glance that they could use some additional citations, but that they may in fact be more notable than Sherpa since they have some claims of notability that have appeared in reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have made changes and added more reputable sources in an attempt to meet Wikipedia's standards. One concern I have is that I have asked you (ConcernedVancouverite) for help twice and feel as though I've received only critiscm and not help. According to Wikipedia, with your power as an administrator you are supposed to kindly help me by providing suggestions. If you do not agree with my changes, please offer suggestions that will allow me to keep my Wikipedia page. --CShortt09 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)CShortt09[reply]

I am not a Wikipedia Administrator. I am just a user that is concerned when I see Wikipedia editing that seems to go against guidelines. I have provided you with many links to help understand what is acceptable, I would encourage you to read them. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepI have heard of this firm and I have to agree with CShortt09. Although there doesn't seem to be a great deal of press about the firm (and much of what was there yesterday was removed by someone) they appear to have local and/or regional notability (if for no other reason than their green initiatives referenced in a linked article yesterday). It doesn't seem to me they are making any claims about their business or trying to gain anything from this article other than to inform - isn't that what wiki is for? --Gregnclt (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Gregnclt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. This is a recruiting, staffing, and consulting services firm that specializes in the fields of Accounting, Finance, Information Technology, and Project Management. Only references in the article are to local press coverage. Inclusion in "top 5000" lists argues against notability: I assume this implies that there are 4999 other businesses on the list. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Please read this if you are a newcomer to this bit of Wikipedia - AfD. Articles for Deletion does not go by head count. It is a discussion where arguments and facts (or lack of facts) are put on the table and examined. We don't want a sudden rush of people saying 'Yeah, they're great, I do business with them' (or 'my grandmother cleans their offices'), and not adding references for anything. When this happens, as it sometimes does, a whole flood of new accounts appear and give nothing to the discussion. And they get disregarded when the closing admin reads through the page. Take note of what the established editors are saying - that's the ones without the 'has made few edits' bit in small print. And here if you are connected with the article There is also a difference between 'informing' and 'being an encyclopaedia entry'. The girl who has opened a florists at the end of your road two days ago wants to inform people she's there - but that's hardly encyclopaedic material. The line is drawn quite a bit away from that very obvious case of non-notability, and Sherpa is a lot closer to it. But on which side? That's what the discussion is for. Get some suitable references and you'll strengthen your case. If it goes, build the business more (aboutus and --LinkedIn are not bad for promotional articles), and come back when you do fit the rules and regs. Peridon (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Peridon, can you please clarify what sources are considered reputable? We have added credible sources and material but ConcernedVancouverite keeps deleting it. How can others objectively judge the article if it keeps being deleted? Thanks in advance for your time and suggestions. --CShortt09 (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Responsibility section that's gone needed a better ref. Blogs, forums, the company site, press releases and anything self-published (or editable like Wikipedia itself...) are all considered unreliable. They may be used within limits for extra info sources, but not to establish notability. Best is an article in a well-known publication - but not one based on press release stuff. Preferably, this should be something with at least state-wide circulation rather than just local town. Local stuff can be fill-in, but something of wider note is advisable. Whatever it is, it should be independent of your business. Always remember, too, that once an article is up on Wikipedia anyone can edit it. If you're not happy with the edits someone is making, talk to them. If still unhappy, there are procedures for arbitration WP:AP. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I will repost this article at a later time when I gather more credible sources.CShortt09 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (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.