Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium 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. Sandstein 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium 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)

The company has received lots of mentions but none of the sources meet the standard of WP:CORPDEPTH. Hence the available coverage is insufficient for a standalone article. Rentier (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- not a notable company as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep References note WP:SIGCOV, thus meeting the threshold. More than three, it ought to be. Ventric (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Request WP:SOCK on origin account. Ventric (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, nothing in-depth, nothing with independent opinion and/or analysis, references fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. There is also nothing to suggest that there is significant coverage on this company - lots of mentions in other articles perhaps but this is not significant coverage. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have re-evaluated my decision based on further reflection. WP:CORPDEPTH is indeed not met, per HighKing. Search results during additional WP:VERIFY yielded a better look. SEC filings and administrative corporate listings do not make for adequate WP:SECONDARY sources. One notable reference was an article in the Boston Globe about the Winthrop Square Tower project written in 09/2017. Ventric (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ventric, you might want to strike your original !vote to clarify your current position. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2017 (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.