Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Abbett

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. Michig (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Abbett

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

No evidence of notability.

Note: My PROD was reverted with an edit summery of "rm PROD having false reason; real reason is to remove an infobox; topic seems notable.". That claim is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is poorly referenced, Lord Abbett has significant coverage. [1], [2], [3] are just a quick few. This is a well-known, oft-discussed firm. Jacona (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found these refs. [4], [5], [6] and [7], I would say that sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. While the page does need work, page content doesn't determine notability. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, plus there are a ton of news and book sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep, obviously notable. Either 2012 Morningstar indepth profile of the firm or 2007 Pension & Investments profile would suffice on its own.

I removed the PROD. To respond to the deletion nominator's accusation, "bogus", above: The deletion nominator is in fact working from a list of articles having generic {{Infobox}}, as he did during a PROD then AFD spree during April-June 2014. Deletion nominator won't perform wp:BEFORE (won't answer the question whether he did or not, in previous cases), appears to make quick judgments that are often/usually wrong, at a rate that I think is unacceptable. Goal in the editor's campaign is clearly to remove uses of the infobox, which this article has. Claim was not "bogus", is based on informed judgment supported by diffs in ongoing administrative enforcement action case. I am kind of dismayed to see this behavior. --do ncr am 19:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic of the article is notable and there are ample reliable and verifiable sources available to show that, which should be better integrated into the article as well as addressing issues of tone. The issues with the article should be addressed but notability is established. I agree that it appears that WP:BEFORE was not complied with and that a cursory search would have demonstrated notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 23 January 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.