Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lab 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 delete. I will userfy the article to User:Amy.rugh/sandbox. Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Lab Consulting[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG. Most (if not all) sources come from Bill Heitman, who is affiliated with the company, which also makes me question whether the article meets WP:V or WP:NPOV. (Now supporting a userfy, see below). ~ Rob^Talk 08:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. I'm happy to take it down until there are sufficient sources that meet WP:V and WP:ORGDEPTH. I've created and edited before, but not taken down a page. How would I go about doing that? Amy.rugh^Talk 21:16, 29 June 2015

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The above comment suggests it could be deleted as a G7. @Amy.rugh: You can add {{db-author}} to the article, and this shows that the article creator wants it deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, the article could be moved to your userspace. This keeps it around for you to work on but removes it from the mainspace to a user page until you're ready to resubmit it. You could then submit it through Articles for Creation when you're ready to get feedback on whether it meets the main content policies and potentially add it back to the mainspace. ~ Rob^Talk 01:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied it into my sandbox to keep it around until the page is ready to join Wikipedia. Do I also need to add {{db-author}} to the source code in order for the current page to be removed? Amy.rugh^Talk 1:29, 30 June 2015

If you want it in your sandbox, I'd much rather we actually move this page there, since that preserves the edit history. So let's userfy it. No need to add the speedy delete template. ~ Rob^Talk 21:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support a userfy. Having looked for sources, it's clear none exist, therefore it's not being to be notable. Putting this back in their sandbox is just giving them false hope that it might be notable enough, when it isn't going to be anytime soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no deletion criteria that I'm aware of that would prevent Amy.rugh from creating a userspace draft for this and maintaining it, which they've already done at this point. I see this more as a decision on whether or not to keep an edit history if they plan to make this a userspace draft no matter what. If I'm missing a policy that prevents them from working on a userspace draft of something not currently notable, let me know and I'll reconsider. ~ Rob^Talk 22:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The history is all their edits anyway, so they're only losing their own attribution. Also, if this gets deleted, then WP:CSD#G4 becomes relevant for future creations, whereas if you userfy it then it doesn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't consider reposting it until there are numerous outside, neutral sources, which I know may take quite a long time. If we could userfy the page, that seems to be the easiest option. I'm catching on to the Wiki terminology and coding, but still learning. Let me know what I can do. @BU Rob13: Amy.rugh^Talk 14:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to the author's sandbox. The author has requested it (after earlier agreeing to deletion), and I see no reason to deny that request. Userfying preserves the history, including the fact that this AfD discussion happened. For us to pre-emptively declare that the subject is not notable and never will be is pure Crystal Ball stuff. The author seems to understand what is needed, and the new article will presumably be evaluated before it is moved to articlespace. In fact, the author SHOULD check with the deleting/userfying administrator before returning it to articlespace, otherwise it is likely to get speedy-deleted under WP:G4, which IMO would apply regardless of whether the article is deleted or userfied. --MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2015 (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.