Talk:Kearney & Company

Would like some help on expanding this article

I have been asked by Kearney & Company to make edits to expand the article. A couple weeks ago I added an information box with some quick stats and it was immediately removed. What steps do I need to follow through before someone removes every little thing I do without explaination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.2.70 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Quack Quack Quack

See Auditor Independence and California State University paper on Auditor Independence. In particular, relating to the advisability of 'biting the hand that feeds', this academic article states 'the auditor is dependent on the client to pay the audit fee'. It continues 'Perhaps we could agree that if total fees from a client do not exceed 1% of an auditor's total billings, that auditor is independent of that client.' By its own admission this company exclusively serves the US Federal Government http://www.kearneyco.com/about.htm WP:Quack Quack Quack Quack Quack Quack Quack BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrators: Please do not delete this article

This company exclusively serves the US Federal Government. It is the auditor of the US Department of State. It is notable. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, unfortunately it possibly does not meet the general notability guidelines for companies (see WP:CORP) which ask for significant mention in independent sources. The only independent source does not seem to make significant non-trivial mention of them. Are there any other sources? --Errant ^(chat!) 12:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Will respond asap lest article deleted in meantime per threatened speedy delete. WP:CORP seems to say 'If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.' I would contend that Accounting Today is independent, reliable, and third-party, and this is certainly not trivial because it means the company is widely-recognised as one of the most important players in the entire accounting industry. I would contend that Washington SmartCEO is also independent, reliable, and third-party, and this is certainly not trivial because it means the company is one of Washington's hottest properties. I would also contend that the US Department of State is also an independent, reliable, and third-party organisation, and this really isn't trivial in any way at all, since the cited US DoS report concerns the oversight of the expenditure of $50bn+ of US taxpayer money. So do we not have three entirely third-party, independent and reliable sources making significant mention? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, meant overview, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, those are company sources. And even worse they are press releases (which are strongly discouraged and always considered trivial). Is there no source actually from Accounting Today? Or SmartCEO? I think those mentions are still trivial; when we say "significant" we refer to actual content dicussing the company, it's activity, its history or its significance (for example) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, the DoS is a trivial mention - because it only confirms their role as auditors. There is no no-trivial analysis or mention of them in that document. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Accounting Today Top 100 Best Firms to Work For may also be found at http://www.accountingtoday.com/papers/-56479-1.html However one must register to actually download the report and in light of, for instance, the seemingly visionary Twitter subpoena article, I am increasingly circumspect about handing-out my personal details willy-nilly. Presumably we can take such a bastion of the establishment's word for it?

Will update the main page with link to and some content from SmartCEO Future 50 2011 Washington DC (p.64). The publication appears to be free from any significant volume of advertising, so I think it looks pretty good. Furthermore, that the industrious CEO of Kearney & Company, entrusted by the United States Federal Government to provide independent and authoritative commentary on its stewardship of US citizens' hard-earned fiscal contributions, should spare any of his busy time communicating via such a platform is surely adequate endorsement.

As for the DoS report, between pages 60 and 77 there are memos and reports circulated between the US DoS IG, Secretary of the US DoS, US DoS Chief Financial Officer, and Kearney which may be more instructive than trivial.

In terms of other sources, I am not sure whether I can immediately find anything of as much relevance and weight as those already cited, although I am happy to go on searching if necessary in order to justify the existence of this article and prevent it from being speedily deleted by administrators. Being relatively new to Wikipedia I don't know, does an article have to be fully-fledged by its initial creator? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is fine to create a stub. The thing you really have to accede is significance in reliable sources, that seems a problem so far, there is no overarching or in-depth coverage that I could find. I think you're ok for speedy purposes :) but a PROD might stick, and an AFD would pose a problem for you at this stage. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy declined

I've declined the speedy deletion request as think it makes an assertion of importance (being the auditor of the US Dos) and so does not fall under WP:CSD#A7. Whether it meets the notability requirements of WP:CORP is unclear, but that needs to be discussed in a deletion discussion if necessary, rather than here. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Validity of 2010 Department of State audit opinion

Please primarily see WP:Quack Quack Quack section above. Material weaknesses identified in the United States Department of State accounts for 2009, only significant deficiencies in 2010. 'New Era of Responsibility' manifesto in 2010 United States federal budget. See relevant sections in United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Homeland Security. What materiality thresholds were adopted in 2010 and 2009 and on what basis is not disclosed. There's also mention in FY10 AR of 'certain other information' relating to internal controls and compliance with international laws that Kearney communicated separately to DoS. Timing of FY 2010 annual reports. Timing of other 'newsworthy events'. This is WP:RS, WP:Notable, WP:Synthesis. American taxpayer.BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kearney & Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205163638/http://www.kearneyco.com/about.htm to http://www.kearneyco.com/about.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713142202/http://www.kearneyco.com/news_20101221.htm to http://www.kearneyco.com/news_20101221.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205164934/http://www.kearneyco.com/news_20100928.htm to http://www.kearneyco.com/news_20100928.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)