Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalberg Global Development Advisors (3rd nomination)

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. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dalberg Global Development Advisors[edit]

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

No third party references for notability. Essentially promotional article, mostly worked on by now-blocked paid editor. (previous afd nomination was pre-empted by a G11 speedy, but that speedy was reverted by the admin who placed it) DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or~~ find significant independent coverage. Also, blank/revert all content added by the paid editor as it is bad for the rep of all involved. I have no idea where to look for independent coverage. Dalberg's own work and its joint work in the Financial Times suggest that it is highly notable, yet a naive web search shows me nothing. (Note: The original copyvio by inactive user Joe Capp (talk · contribs) was blanked and doesn't appear in the current article.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to change my view so quickly, but the Rolling Stone article mentioned at Talk:Dalberg Global Development Advisors#Suggested Links looks significant at first glance, and if The Expatriate is an RS (it is new to me), then I could be persuaded towards a keep opinion. (I didn't try to track down the Business Week dead link.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and send for cleanup. If the paid editing material isn't there the article would have been in much better shape (and not be a repeat customer at AfD), but otherwise the organisation is notable with repeated appearances on the media. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 20 April 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.