Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Thornton LLP

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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Thornton LLP

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

Not Notable. No Reliable sources discuss this organization at length. Mentioned in the refs only casually. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the very least this should be merged to the parent company. I don't see outright deletion as an option here. --Michig (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. US branch of a major International accounting firm which is by itself the 6th largest accounting firm in the US, according to Accounting Today.[1] The company has been covered on wikipedia since 2005, there is no real reason to remove it now. Don't delete an article because it is imperfect or could be better sourced. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does anyone know for sure if the $1.4 billion in revenues is for Grant Thornton specifically or if it's actually for the parent company? We should always keep articles on companies with more than $1 billion, but I know sometimes subsidiaries/divisions exaggerate their significance by using data that's actually for the parent organization. CorporateM (Talk) 05:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are revenues for US, global revenue is on the order of 4-5 billion per this.Vrac (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The US firm is a massive operation in its own right, tons of coverage. Vrac (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable US firm. The fact that sources are not in the article is not a valid rationale for deletion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Extensive coverage of this firm evident in basic searches. A merge to Grant Thornton International is conceivable (and can be discussed outside of AfD) but deletion is not appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:34, 9 August 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.