Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carratu International

: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 no consensus. Though the bolded "deletes" outnumber the "keeps", sources have been presented in this discussion and there has been no discussion/rebuttal of them. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

=[[Carratu International]]=

:{{la|Carratu International}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Carratu International}})

Does not meet WP:CORP ThatManAgain (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Not really notable, this borders on advertising, rather than anything more substantial. It looks like it's only employees who are editing this too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Not notable. Dan653 (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment There's press coverage over a number of years although it doesn't give much detail about the firm. The case of Hughes v Carratu International plc gets significant coverage in legal contexts[http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=217509][http://www.linklaters.com/Publications/Publication1403Newsletter/PublicationIssue20060821/Pages/PublicationIssueItem1426.aspx][http://www.europeanbusinessexpress.com/legal/IP/CorporateSpies_Graham_Robinson_Farncombe_IP_EBXLaw.asp][http://www.5rb.com/case/Hughes-v-Carratu-International-plc][http://www.12kbw.co.uk/cases/commentary/id/94/][http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/why-magnum-pi-might-be-bad-your-health]. The firm is often cited as experts on privacy[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/sep/07/privacy.richardadams1][http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240146742/Business-at-risk-from-fake-computer-parts][http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2000/aug/31/consumerpages2][http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/counterfeiting-britain-rises-in-fakers-league-leading-sportswear-makers-join-the-companies-that-are-losing-millions-to-the-ripoff-merchants-1415941.html][http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6b13faec-e4b1-11d9-95f3-00000e2511c8.html#axzz1qyYkzIfj][http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2004/oct/04/business.crime]. I'm leaning towards keep but it's arguable. If kept, the article should be rewritten and detail on Hughes vs Carratu added. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Couldn't find any reliable sources or anything of value, plus, having been established in '63, I fairly doubt they are the oldest ever corporate investigation firm in the UK. ~dee^(talk?) 11:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep The book Trademark counterfeiting, product piracy, and the billion dollar threat to the US Economy by Paul R. Paradise (Greenwood Publishing Group; on Google Books) has 2 pages on their actions combatting perfume counterfeiting. Dirty Tricks: British Airways' Secret War Against Virgin Atlantic by Martyn Gregory (Random House; some parts on Google Books) discusses Carratu's involvements in corporate espionage. The company also appears (though I can't read the full passage) in Vendetta: American Express and the smearing of Edmond Safra by Bryan Burrough (HarperCollins). Other Google Books hits too. Lots of interesting things to say about this company. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Your additions (specifically around the employee vetting aspects) are perilously close to advertising... --hydeblake (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep Decent number of independent sources with at least some mention of the subject.JoelWhy (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Way too obscure to be in an encyclopaedia. It is SPAM by stealth. This is not the Yellow Pages and we are trying to create an encyclopaedia not a business directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

: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.