Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audur 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audur capital[edit]

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

I tagged this article for numerous issues something over three months ago; since then, no changes have been made. Issues with notability and spammishness remain. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance, and obvious advertising: The services that Audur offers, including wealth management, private equity and corporate advisory, can actually be found at any financial service company. However it is not the services that the company provides that makes it different but rather HOW it is done.... Audur’s values are the core to HOW the company conducts business. Audur is fiercely independent, risk aware and straight talking and believes in profit with principles and emotional capital. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was a mess, but it cited (as external links, which I have converted into references) a lot of significant coverage in important international media. I cleared out most of the spam and wikified the references, and I believe the company clearly meets Wikipedia standards of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if kept, the article should be moved to Audur Capital (with a capital C, no pun intended). --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been covered in some detail by prominent media outlets. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks depth of coverage in secondary sources. This company was big news when it was first created per the footnotes, but nothing since then. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Spoke too soon) Keep - still being talked about in reliable sources [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharkxFanSJ (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 July 2010
Week Delete - Agree with SharkxFanSJ it is being mentioned, but not at the sort of significant levels to pass WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources currently cited in the article show a range of coverage in multiple reliable sources; they are not just trivial mentions. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:51, 21 July 2010 (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.