Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of consulting

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 . This article seems to be a presentable outline and not a dictionary definition. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Poor attempt at what is a DICDEF and a long list of unrelated consulting careers/things. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to discuss a statement. It is more a discussion of what forms a scope for Wikipedia's in-out mechanisms, rather than whether it is an outline of consulting or not

(I don't see how else one would construct an outline of consulting, namely). I thought it'd be a good idea to have an outline of a service industry that has a growing employment number as a result of the industrialization of the growing economy. Whether that is of encyclopedic or dictionary value, well it's maybe in the eyes of the beholder .. Danielsltt (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I want to be clear in that I'm not saying that you're wrong. Rather I'm recognizing the arbitrariness of the discussion based on Wikipedia's rather loose, swaying guidelines .. Danielsltt (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:AFG Danielsltt (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Economics and Business. 03:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonberryPie (talk • contribs)
• Comment I don't understand the nomination at all (nor, frankly, the page creator's response) so I wonder whether it was a different article that was intended for AFD. This list is nothing like a WP:DICDEF (dictionary definition) nor was it intended to be. It is a WP:OUTLINE, a type of navigational list. In a very rough and ready sort of way it is a list of "consulting careers/things" but is that any sort of problem, let alone a reason for deletion? Surely they are not "unrelated": if any items are unrelated they should be removed. I will not !vote at present because I may be missing any important aspect and I hope all this can be clarified. Thincat (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, I wasn't sure how to explain it. It starts out with prose stating it's attempting to explain consulting, then goes into a list. Oaktree b (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A WP:OUTLINE is supposed to have a lead followed by a hierarchical list: "The purpose of the lead section in outlines is to present just enough description to uniquely identify and recognize the subject". What is the reason for deletion? Thincat (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't think it met LIST. It appears as a badly titled "article" trying to explain the concept, doesn't that, then has a long list of things. I wasn't sure what to make of it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - whatever we may think of Wikipedia's approach to outlines, this one conforms to that, providing an overview of the encyclopedia's detailed coverage of the topic. No doubt it is useful to readers interested in such things. It would be nice if it were better-cited, but outlines are not even required to have refs, as it happens. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is what I was trying to do. It is a useful tool for overviews to rather large subjects in terms of scope. Thanks for the input Danielsltt (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (I commented above). I get the feeling the nominator is rather withdrawing his nomination. This is a navigational list including only other Wikipedia articles, hence only including notable topics, so meeting WP:NLIST and, since there are no red links, no citations are required. See WP:CSC. The overall topic is notable: here is a book suitable for people like me.[1] Thincat (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2023 (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.