Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BMB Group

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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BMB Group[edit]

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

Promotional. Not notable. Sources are weak. The Eskimo (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weak sources? Have you seen the full article in the Financial Post.? The WP article itself lists a full article in the Wall Street Journal. Two such references are enough to establish notability. This article does need considerable rewriting, but that is not cause for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needs cleanup, but it seems notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NDSteve10 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. The cited coverage is all announcements of investments or acquisitions. These routine deals don't really establish historical, technical, or cultural significance, and I am not seeing anything more substantial. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; blatant promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG above. I've cleaned up some of the worst of the WP:PROMO already, but it needs more: I'll have a bash at that today. It will need occasional checking and de-spamification if it's kept, as there's an evident WP:COI by its creator. Top Jim (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally PRODded this article for being an unnecessary content fork but it has improved a fair amount since then and though unlikely to be of interest for the layman reader, it appears to meet the WP:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria; on this occasion, I too fall in line with DGG's opinion. Fæ (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and with thanks to Top Jim. Peridon (talk) 15:15, 11 November 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.