Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coller 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 no consensus to delete. Arguments that this subject is not notable have been made, others assert that this is a notable company. Eastmain has done a good job in finding references, and in that light, comments before that time could be unaware of these new developements. After that comment there was still a call for (speedy) deletion. There is no real consensus either way, which defaults to keeping the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coller Capital[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Recreated twice under different names Coller capital and this curent version, both have been deleted once per WP:CSD#G12. Article was created by a user with a WP:COI. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be self promotion and no indication of notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also my comments on Coller Capital and Landmark Partners.

DELETED as suggested Urbanrenewal (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Urbanrenewal, your arguments would be much more effective if you distilled your text down to the most notable things. Compare to some other notable private equity groups if possible. Please cut down your huge chunk of text; I can't read it and I doubt anyone else can either. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 07:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you mind cutting that out and pasting it on a page or section in your userspace, then linking that back to here? I'm not saying it isn't helpful information, but it would make it easier for those of us patrolling AfD to scroll by without seeing large amounts of text that isn't really related to the debate over an article. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Urbanrenewal, you should list the assets under management for each of these firms in their page. But I agree that if these are the largest firms in their sector, then they should be listed. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 17:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Validation of Notability and Objectivity where I lay out the same argument for articles for Lexington Partners, Coller Capital and Landmark Partners including substantial third party sources Urbanrenewal (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Specialized newsletters and trade publications can be reliable sources. In particular, I note that Private Equity Analyst is published by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., better known as the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, and therefore I expect that the newsletter is as selective and careful about what it includes as a daily newspaper would be. I note that the newsletter's content is available only to subscribers. There is no requirement that a reliable source's content be available free on the web. --Eastmain (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ”Verifiability”???? .. the others; Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nom. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account. Part of a larger spam campaign that seeded WP with spam articles.

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#private_equity_firm_Spam_articles
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - It is most likely a notable company, but the article reads like an advertisement. In view of the new additions to the article by Eastmain, I have to switch my original vote to Keep Ecoleetage (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added some references, and I don't think the article is spam now. --Eastmain (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Check the WP:Spam noticeboard for these users and domain names. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wrote this page and have made substantial further edits. I think everyone will agree that the page is now substantial in content and fairly balanced, with a section on competitors, etc. I also think given the references to third party articles and other sources this should be considered a notable topic and worth of keeping on the site. Please see my work on similar firms in the same space Landmark Partners, Lexington Partners and a work-in-progress User:Urbanrenewal/AlpInvest Partners. i appreciate all of the comments and do not expect to make substantial further additions and would much prefer to let other users comment and adjust the page as necessary. Urbanrenewal (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three of these articles are about major companies. The failure to recognize their notability is an example of cultural bias. It isnt the part of the world most Wikipedia people know about, so we are reluctant to admit the sources. In fact, I think some of us who have seen many examples of corporate spam have a certain skepticism about that whole side of life, but it isnt at all reasonable. These are all notable companies, and we include as much information as the sources permit.DGG (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2008 (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.