The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Keep. It seems that the editor is still working on it. No harm in keeping for a while. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Russell Reynolds Associates[edit]

Draft:Russell Reynolds Associates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There was enough time in 3 reviews to at least give us the needed substance in a convincing article, the article itself has unchanged itself with still only keeping either clear-copied company advertising or advertised business announcements, all is sufficient for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd appreciate further clarification on why my Wiki submission for Russell Reynolds was denied and moved for deletion. You state that there has been anything to satisfy Wikipedia policies; however, when comparing the citations and the content to a different wiki entry for a company in the same industry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Zehnder the citation quality and language/tone for the Russell Reynolds submission are very comparable. In fact the Russell Reynolds submission contains citations from many of the same sources listed in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Zehnder The citations from the Wall Street Journal are a good example.

Heidrick and Struggles, another very similar firm, is also an approved Wikipedia submission with citations and language very similar to the Russell Reynolds submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidrick_%26_Struggles . Using Egon Zehnder and Heidrick and Struggles Wikipedia entries as examples to model the Russell Reynolds citation after, since they are approved which means they satisfy Wikipedia policies, seemed to me like a good idea. Is that not the case, and if so, it would seem as if the approval process is very subjective and not based on any clearly defined standards.

Here is the specific feedback:

There was enough time in 3 reviews to at least give us the needed substance in a convincing article, the article itself has unchanged itself with still only keeping either clear-copied company advertising or advertised business announcements, all is sufficient for deletion. e

You mention that the submission was populated using marketing copy taken from elsewhere, if so, I would love to see the source material I used copied. I am not being snarky, rather, I wrote this content and do not appreciate being accused of plagiarism/copy and paste.

Business announcements usually are sales propositions - this article submission is merely stating facts, much in the same way the content that populates:

Also mentioned was the timeline elapsed from the first entry until this most recent. I am not being paid to submit this information to Wikipedia - if that was the case, I most likely would have lost my job by now since indeed it has been quite some time. I did add additional text and 6 additional new citations from reputable sources.

I am not trying to be difficult and am more than happy to additional content to this submission if you provide me with additional direction. This exercise is simply meant to be a way to learn my way around Wikipedia. I appreciate your help and guidance.

Thanks, Jose User: JCTH2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCTH2015 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article reads like it is a press release. Whether you took the words from ad copy, or wrote it yourself, the entire article looks like advertising, and not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
News reports from just the last few months suggest otherwise:
--Russell Reynolds Associates is leading the search for the UK's top post-Brexit international trade negotiator.[1]
--Was hired by the city of Houston to find its next police chief so that "applications and résumés of job candidates do not have to be made available through the Texas Public Information Act." [2]
--Will find potential candidates for future top executive positions at HSBC Holdings Plc. [3]
--Has been retained by Shake Shack to initiate a search for a new chief financial officer. [4]
--Is looking for a new president of the University of Texas of the Permian Basin. [5]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/29/brexit-trade-deal-vacancy
  2. ^ http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Turner-uses-search-firm-to-keep-police-chief-7955792.php
  3. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-26/hsbc-hires-recruitment-firm-to-find-future-executives-ft-says
  4. ^ http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/01/05/shake-shack-names-first-coo-says-cfo-to-retire.html
  5. ^ http://www.oaoa.com/news/education/utpb/article_c75a04e2-da89-11e6-b70b-175410a11e3a.html
Since the subject is arguably notable, and this is the first time reviewers have raised the issue that the article reads like an advertisement, contributor should be allowed to correct issues that are now being raised. As the notability guideline states: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort[1]."

162.245.21.61 (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not showing our this Draft, as a whole, actually satisfies our policies, or how it would be better improved in them? WP:N itself in fact, since you listed the link, says "There's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone" which seems to be the case here since the Draft is full of clear PR; in fact, your sources above are clear business announcements, of which WP:N says is unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister having rescued Hoss's Steak and Sea House from articles for deletion [2] it seems you are aware that "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." [3] 162.245.21.61 (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is the plan for this entry, it seems that based on the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidrick_%26_Struggles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Zehnder, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Stuart the Russell Reynolds submission satisfies the requirements for acceptance. I have cleaned up the copy that referenced the Russell Reynolds website copy - again a misunderstanding on my end, attempted to re-work the language so there is a more neutral tone and have added additional citations which do show notability. It may help to Google the title of the articles since merely clicking the link takes you to a paywall.:: JCTH2015 (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JCTH2015 (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Thank you so much for the guidance, I will edit my article submission to correct this issue and also incorporate the citations listed here. I'm very grateful for the additional feedback.[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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoss%27s_Steak_and_Sea_House&action=history
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles
More