Deletion of Statistical consultant

Comment: I apologise if my argument appeared 'veiled'; I tried to be explicit. Let me try again. I suggest that this article is deleted because the topic in not . Nor are any of the following: consultant pharmacist, creative consultant, educational consultant, elevator consultant, employment consultant, foreclosure consultant, lactation consultant, legal nurse consultant, loss control consultant, magic consultant, media consultant, process consultant, theatre consultant, or consultant (medicine), or, for that matter, any of the scores of other types of consultant for which there is no Wikipedia article. Of course, this is only my POV, as is pretty much everything I think. Regards&mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: Clearly satisfies  based on books from respected publishers serving this profession. This is not arbitrary cross-categorization. I endorse moving to Statistical consulting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: For any number of reasons.  First, the article appears to meet erify, , and  policies (It is clearly a legitimate type of consultanting with lots of practioners and plenty of professional journal coverage ) and no other specific guideline was invoked arguing for deletion.  The veiled argument that ''do we need an article on every possible type of consultant?'' is clearly POV and is not a legitimate deletion argument!  I would suspect that if I suggested ''Do we need an article on every possible type of musician?'' in WP (of which there probably is), I would get laughed out of town.  Inclusion of articles in WP ought to be based on erify, , and  policies, not someone's feeling that something shouldn't be included
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)