Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caledonia Consulting

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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Caledonia Consulting

Caledonia Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable. Ziggy Sawdust 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

this lobby firm is notable for its connections with a Scottish Parliament supported charitable venture; because it has employed former MSPs including a disgraced member of the House of Lords; because the organisation it is connected with was investigated by the Scottish Parliament and because it also includes a former Pfizer lobbyist also associated with the 'non lobbying' SPBE. This has been a matter of political controversy in scotland and has featured in the press regulatrly. I will add some more sources.

--Davidmillerglasgow (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:COATRACK article for attacks on two of this firm's lobbyists. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable company, with references from reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Umm, probably merge to Scottish Parliament Business Exchange as that appears to be the source of the notability/notoriety. Mind you that one is a borderline attack page too. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Well-referenced article, not deserving of deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, thinly disguised attack piece, but I think a neutral article could be written on the subject. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 27 April 2008 (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.