Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Speaker Bureau

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. Sandstein 21:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Speaker Bureau[edit]

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

Other than a scandal with a Greek politician (all sources being more about him than about the company), all I can find are variations on "founded by X" and "in a statement from LSB". Basically, I can't find anything approaching significant coverage or an indication of meeting CORP/GNG. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

probably delete Article created by same new user who created an article about this firm's founder Tom Kenyon-Slaney. Both articles appear to be mere WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any reliable and independent sources. One of the more questionable sources made an obviously false claim that "the London Speaker Bureau is the largest speaker bureau in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia". Ceosad (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs trimming. Ten seconds on Google News found me plenty of good sources, like this, this, this and this. And that's only in the last six months or so. Yes, it's clearly a COI-written article, but it needs cleanup not deletion. Blythwood (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of these sources help due to the fact that they are scandal-mongering about rich politicians. WP:ORGDEPTH states that identifying a quoted person as working for an organization is just a passing mention, and not enough for establishing notability. See also WP:INHERITORG. Ceosad (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Clean up~~ - The article is in such need of help, it's hard to sort out - and I find some good sources, and some that aren't good at all. I'm going to try cleaning up the article just to see what might really be there. I am finding references in books, HighBeam, newspapers, but it needs some sorting out. I don't have a clear view one way or the other right now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and clean-up the article - adding or modifying content based upon the sources. I am only comfortable with the charities section - and I could find no news sources for that content.

The information about the company comes from essentially a primary source. There's no good content about the company - and I could quickly tell that it was going to take a lot of searching to be able to piece together an article. I moved uncited content to the talk page - along with other questions. Based on the attempt that was made to make it appear that there were viable sources for the content - and totally missed the mark - I vote "delete" now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2016 (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.