Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of outsourcing companies

List of outsourcing companies

Several infringments on WP:NOT (Directory, Resource for business, Indiscriminate collection of information, Advertising), possibly some WP:SPAM. Also the article titile implies very, very wide scope as there is no mention of what is being outsourced - companies at large could be considered outsourcing (you pay money, they provide service/product that you don't) User A1 (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep to WP:NOT and overuse of fairuse images, and of course, OR in picking which companies "outsource" MBisanz ^talk 08:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is not useful. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the given reasons. Add to that the fact that I can imagine many more companies outsourcing than what is given here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unmaintainable and several Unverifiable entries. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more than too many fair use images. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Blue-linked lists are useful for navigation. All the companies currently included have their own WP articles, so they've already met a basic standard of notability. The current criterion for list inclusion seems to be 'Companies that have WP articles that describe themselves as outsourcing companies.' If you include lack of a list criterion as a reason for deletion, you should be willing to join in a discussion of what the list criterion ought to be. Since a question was raised about the fair-use status of the corporate logos, I removed them all. Since dollar volume is included for several companies the list has some analytic value. If you believe those without stated revenues should be removed, that might be worth considering. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have addressed the fair use problem; however I don't think this addresses the problem of the un-encyclopaedic nature of the article (business resource). User A1 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If outsourcing companies exist, how do you suggest that we cover them? We have an article called Outsourcing, so WP recognizes the concept. Is there something special about outsourcing companies that we should not make lists of them? We do have lists of other kinds of companies. EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the companies are notable enough for WP articles--and the ones listed are-- then the list is not indiscriminate. Its a suitable guide to the material, giving information more useful than a category. The sources are in the linked articles, but they could be added here. Meets all policy requirements. There was a comment tha the list can be deleted because more companies could be added--then write the articles about the companies and add them; WP is still growing. DGG (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have mixed opinions. Lists for the purpose of being a list are not WP. Lists as a research tool are useful. I think that this is a good resource for someone researching out-sourcing to get an idea of the comanies listed on W/P as such. That's about the only justification I have. I say keep but only for companies with W/P Articles of Rated as Start or better by a project that has areed to include that company as part of the scope of their project. Change the name to "List of Outsourcing Companies on Wikipedia" An article in theory is sources this justifying inclusion. Start or better prevents spam stubs. Having it tied to a wikiproject ensures some sort of calabiration. This prevents spam and crazy list syndrome (list of mega churches was a good example). Just a thought. M-BMor (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]