Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Strategic Counsel
Just to be clear, from its creation in 2005 the article was always only about the Canadian company until just 12 days ago, when somebody added the Australian lobbying firm as brand new content that was never in the article before this year — but ''neither'' topic has the proper sourcing to support its notability per  or , as the Canadian company cites no sources at all (and has never previously had any sources in it before) while the Australian firm cites only its own self-published primary sourcing. And I can't find solid sourcing on a ProQuest search to repair the Canadian company's notability, either — I get a lot of glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things (mainly political or social stories in which SC happens to have done some polling), but I can't find adequate coverage ''about'' SC as a ''subject''. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually find the correct kind of sourcing to give one or the other of them much more depth than just a brief statement that it exists, but neither of these topics is cutting it under our notability and sourcing criteria as they actually stand
— User:Bearcat, 21:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:CORP||WP:ORG (Wikipedia:Notability)