Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Burke Group

The Burke Group

An article assembled from tidbits of news coverage, almost all of which is dominated by opposition to the company's union busting activities. OTRS ticket 2008041410037191 applies. The main editor tried to improve the sourcing, but acknowledges that it is "is a hard company to get information on, precisely because they want to be secretive". Absolutely correct. But WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV means we need to be sure that if a company is hard to get information on, we are not blazing the trail in correcting that, especially when we only have polemical sources on which to draw. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence confirms that this is the world's largest union avoidance/busting firm. That is verified by its own website - and all those newspaper articles. Newspaper articles are not tidbits, but reliable sources. There are no newspaper articles that cover its non-union busting activities because it is a union busting firm. I expect anybody who reads this page will not go away thinking anything they have read is 'unreliable' or 'unverifiable' - if they would, where and which sentences? The sources are not polemical. The article is one hundred percent neutral, because all significant views are represented, per WP:NPOV. In terms of media coverage, EVERY significant view that can be found - and I challenge anybody to find anything further - is on that page.

In short this is a significant page, on an important firm, that is well documented, and it should stay. It is a misplaced proposal for deletion. Even if it were non-neutral, that would mean a neutrality tag should be placed on the page, and the specific complaint, the specific sentence described on the talk page. Deletion is completely uncalled for.

It should also be recognised that this is precisely the kind of firm which does not want coverage about its conduct, and exactly the kind of company which wants to be secretive. The idea that the article should be deleted runs contrary to everything that Wikipedia stands for, and I would suggest that anybody who thinks otherwise should wonder why they are here.

Once again, the page is reliable, verifiable and neutral. Even if it were not, that would mean it should be changed. But nobody has said what should be changed and where. There is no case for deletion. Wikidea 14:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Guy, on your page when I say it's hard to get information on this company - I mean in the positive sense, in the magazines like Forbes or Business Week which you suggested. You know you're taking my words out of context. There's loads of info about this firm, and most of it's cited in the article. Wikidea 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an obvious dearth of neutral analytical independent impartial sources. Which does not mean, I think, that we should use polemical ones instead. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your conclusion it seems is to pretend the company doesn't exist! I think that the BBC, the Independent, the FT and the Guardian (except for one comment is free reference) have written entirely neutral, analytical, independent and impartial sources. You've failed to say why they are not. And besides, you've got the policy on deletion entirely wrong I'm afraid. It's a neutrality tag you're after. And I think you're wrong on that too. What you really need to do is chip in and improve the article rather than relying on admin status to threaten deletion. Wikidea 14:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is adequately referenced. --Eastmain (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article suffers a bit from inadequately broad sourcing, but that is easily rectified. There's no question they have been substantively covered by reliable and independent sources and are touted as one of the largest union-busters out there (in the US, if not the world). They are thus unquestionably worthy of coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately cited and notable. It may be hard to get information on the company itself, but its activities are pretty well covered by sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Impeccably sourced. Their web page is sufficient for the general orientation in their own words. I'd add a quote for their claimed successes. [1] We have enough problems with BLP for notable individuals who do not like it that people know about their relevant biography and public activities. One article is currently is being opposed on the basis of not hurting the feelings of the family. Extending this to a firm of consultants is ridiculous. Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that says what the subjects want to hear. DGG (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]