Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge First Financial

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge First Financial

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

This company fails WP:GNG AND WP:ORGDEPTH. Only found minor and passing mentions from relatively primary unreliable sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The company has articles and mentions on multiple reputable sources including, CTVNews, The Toronto Star and Financial Post. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silksnipe (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Silksnipe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- overly promotional article on an unremarkable financial services firm; significant RS coverage not found to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. What comes are can be traced to the firm's own PR. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the news mainly for a manager's participation in a "massive criminal scheme" -- which of course is nowhere to be found in this sanitised article -- the firm fails WP:ORG. 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

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.