Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of call centre companies

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. It is important to remember that consensus is not a vote. With that in mind, I find that the strength and basis in policy for keep rationales is significantly stronger than that for deletion. In order to arrive at this conclusion, I carefully considered the content and weight of each argument, ensuring that everyone’s opinion is accounted for. At the end of this process, I conclude that there is a consensus to keep. The consensus is based on a careful consideration of the strength and grounding of each argument in policy as opposed to rationales which do not follow from established guidelines. Taking all of this into account, I see a consensus to keep the page.

(non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

List of call centre companies

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The list exists to let some companies avoid orphaning (at least one of them is an ongoing AfD). And we already have Category:Call centre companies for any other purpose. Suitskvarts (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bare list with no proof of completeness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgfleischmann (talk • contribs)
No completeness in your statement since you forgot to sign it. Completeness is not a requirement for an article to exist. Dream Focus 00:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It remains a list of call center companies with articles in Wikipedia, imho a bit missleading Kgfleischmann (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is that misleading? Have you never seen a list article before? Any list only list entries that are notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have their own articles. Dream Focus 15:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You shouldn't delete a list because you prefer categories. There is a rule against that. Everything on the list links to its own article. Dream Focus 00:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I have edited the article to have a table. This allows for far more information than a category would have, thus more useful for those wishing to find something. Valid navigational list and a valid information list as well. Dream Focus 00:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a problem as long as the entries point to an article (and the article asserts their notability). That is standard, and we have lots and lots of lists like that. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets CLN/AOAL // Timothy :: talk 13:29, 1 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.