Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Grant 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Grant Group[edit]

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

Not notable-- every reference here is a mere notice or mention. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete. I tagged this for questionable notability a few days ago, but didn't nominate for deletion because of the Guardian article, which is in moderate depth and in an impeccable source. I don't see any other significant extended coverage. Does that one article satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH? I think not. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can be in exceptional instances, Whether it should be here is another matter. I think the interest of the Guaaaardian is because of the artists involved, not the firm. It talks about the sale of the group to a larger entity, the Formation Group, in 2008. In 2014 the group was apparently sold to another firm. Metric Capital Partners. It may since have been bought by yet another firm, according to ref 12 in the article. I do not think this transient independent notability justifies an article on JGG, but we should see if an article is appropriate for the other firms. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds sensible, DGG. I'd certainly have proposed redirecting to the parent company article – if there had been one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can nonetheless still write one, or repurpose this, or do a draft version. Perhaps an editor who woould like to keep the material would be willing DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. The notability of this article is unquestionable. The sources prove the notability through the Guardian, Bloomberg, Insider Media, Sportsbusinessdaily as well as other sources. Much of the reliable information/content for this page has been deleted. Reworking the page while adding content and information will improve the page. Doboscake15 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, how is this satisfying our explicit policies about this?

Delete as it is a fact what's listed here is simply published and republished announcements and PR, none of which will lend actual notability here, regardless if it was 100 of them. It's also clear there's a named mention for SONY and that itself will not establish automatic notability either. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see evidence that a certain PR company exists and has been bought and sold a few times. Not much else. Fails WP:CORP notability, and several of the client list sources (7 and 9 at least) fail WP:NOTINHERITED: evidence of scraping the web for dribs and drabs. - Brianhe (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete the page has more than one notable source including The Sun, and The Guardian. Notable consulting and talent agency that should 100% be a part of the encyclopedia.BurritoSlayer (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a very well-known talent agency. More significant coverage in Sunday Times,[1] Express,[2] (who note it is the biggest talent agency in the UK as judged by worth of clients), Guardian,[3] (again, who give some useful background on founding). Also some local news:[4][5]. Fences&Windows 11:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sunday Times says it's a 100-person company. That's kind of thin stuff for Wikipedia notability isn't it? The Express bit seems to be presuming importance based on the client list, which is really close to the WP:NOTINHERITED line if not over it. - Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- spammy and no indications of significance or notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are a number of independent sources that discuss the company and their clients, it is important to know the management of some of those clients. It manages a number of clients in the public eye (as proven by the sources, particularly as they're from credible publications and sources) and there is a want from a number of people to be aware of who manages said people and of the history of said company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiehe2011 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 January 2017 (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.