Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centaur Asset Management

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. MBisanz ^talk 18:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur Asset Management (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)

Procedural nomination. Overly promotional but declined PROD to allow for wider audience of AfD to assess the notability of the references. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Haven't gone through the sources yet, but worth noting that this article was created and initially edited by two different sock-farms: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kunstmolch. Both farms also contributed to Draft:Centaur Asset Management, which was declined and then improperly copy/pasted, which is an attribution issue. This will need a histmerg (if it survives). Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I had tagged with PROD because it was created by a bunch of now-blocked promotional sock puppets. (and still think it should be deleted). The draft version of this article failed AfC multiple times before this one was created. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of WP:CORP notability (none of the "awards" listed appear to be notable). Heavy-handed socking from paid COI accounts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I frankly consider this G11 material, should be deleted entirely as there's nothing minimally actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 23 July 2016 (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.