Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramount Capital

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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Capital

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

I am also nominating the following related page for deletion, because it is closely related and similarly fails WP:N:

The sources in Paramount Capital do not establish notability. Let's go through each:

Shortened for readability

Source 1 does not currently exist, and when it did, it was a one-sentence rote listing of the company, "Paramount Capital Inc in New York, NY is a private company categorized under Financial Advisory Services".
Source 2 does not currently exist, and never did;
Source 3 is self-published, and in any case, does not mention "Paramount" once, and is dynamic;
Source 4 is self-published, and simply says that a website is affiliated with Paramount;
Source 5 currently redirects to the website's home page, and used to mention Paramount once: "Paramount BioCapital, Inc. served as the lead placement agent and gross proceeds were approximately $18.1 million";
Source 6 does not exist and Wayback Machine doesn't have it;
Source 7 is a rote listing that Paramount exists;
Source 8 was simply a rote mention that Paramount bought stock, along with several other companies: "The Emeryville company (OTCBB: BNVI) sold shares to RA Capital, Paramount, BioCapital Asset Management, Ironwood Capital and other private shareholders";
Source 9 is a self-published press release;
Source 10 403s and Wayback Machine doesn't have it;
Source 11 never mentions Paramount;
Source 12 gives "page not found" and Wayback Machine doesn't have it;
Source 13 404s, Wayback Machine shows a blank screen, and is in any case a blog;
Source 14 never talks about Paramount at all;
Source 15 is restricted-access, but in any event, from the URL, doesn't look like it has anything to do with Paramount;
Source 16, 17 are simply bios of employees;
Source 19, a 12-paragraph source, gives a passing mention of one Paramount employee in "She finds herself turning for advice to Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald, chairman of Paramount Capital Asset Management Inc., the venture capitalist who provided her first financial-industry break eight years ago";
Source 20 is a self-filed SEC filing;
Source 21 refers to http://www.paramount-group.com, not this paramountcapital.com;
Neither sources 22 nor 23 ever mention Paramount.

For those reasons, the sources do not demonstrate Paramount Capital's (or its subsidiary's) notability. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only do the sources fail to meet GNG, there are a lot of claims that have {{citation needed}} after them, and said claims aren't even that special. Note: I shortened the reflist with L235's permission Primefac (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 03:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as the current coverage is something but simply not enough of a better notable article as it could be. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 15 December 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.