Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artvest Partners

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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artvest Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Contested prod - apparent bad faith removal of prod notice. This is a spammy article created by SPA, with no clear evidence of the subject's notability. Fails WP:ORG Andyjsmith (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seeing a lot of mentions in reliable sources: e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], with some decent coverage. There's coverage of its two main people and lots of mentions of the company itself. Enough to meet WP:GNG, or at least WP:CORP, in my opinion. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can't access the first two of those refs because they're behind a paywall. The third is a reasonable reference but the last two only mention Artvest once each, in passing, and aren't actually about Artvest. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an FYI, you can read any WSJ article by googling the title. The 5 links I provided aren't the only ones, just a sampling to show that there are a large number of references about the company in various sources (there are many more, e.g., :[6], [7], [8], [9], [10]). If you search Google News you'll see a number of results. Also the two main partners at the company are part of the notability of the company, since they don't have their own page. They're referenced a lot as well in the press. I think the number of results and references in reliable sources is enough to demonstrate notability. Although I agree with your comments about the page, if it's kept it will definitely need to be cleaned up. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Improve or delete for now as WP:TNT at best as I actually tagged this in August 2011 and it has unsurprisingly not improved since then so it's unlikely any better and immediate improvement can happen. Pinging past users Postdlf and Justlettersandnumbers. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The purported references are either written by them, or where they are incidentally quoted in an article about something else. No actual substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - poor quality article with no improvement in four years, underlining the subject's lack of notability and dearth of coverage in secondary reliable sources. Run of the mill WP:ARTSPAM by single-edit, single-purpose account. Citobun (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 18 November 2015 (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.