Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Stuart

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. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Stuart[edit]

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

This short entry about a company reads like a promotional material, I have trouble seeing how it meets notability of WP:CORP. So far all this article has ridding for it is that the company was mentioned in 2009 in WSJ ([1]). I don't think one mention in a reliable source is enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Source examples include, (but are not limited to): [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Also, per WP:NRVE topic notability is based upon source availability, and not whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as you are going to have a page that lists Executive Search Firms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Executive_search_firms you should allow all Executive Search firms to be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaMathieu (talk • contribs) 18:44, 22 October 2012 (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.