Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prestige Economics (2nd 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 delete. I'm invoking NOTAVOTE here. Based on strength of WP:PAG based argument I believe there is rough consensus to delete. The two pro-Keep comments (one of which was weak) are not ringing endorsements. And "mentions" in RS sources don't ring the WP:N bell. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige Economics[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

non notable business venture. Most sources are just the CEO's profile. 2Joules (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Half of the article is a biography of its founder; the rest basically says the company exists and people intern at it. Nothing that satisfies notability guidelines, and I am unable to find anything substantive that isn't PR-type material. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has been mentioned on notable sources like Forbes, Washington Post etc. There are more references about it but I am not using it as these look promotional and I haven't added it. There are way more links about Prestige Economics but I dont know how to use these in the article. If someone could help me it is going to be great. Secondly, most of the forecasting companies that I looked at on Wikipedia have only one or two references and they all look pretty similar so I thought this is how the page is supposed to be BrookeCook (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)— BrookeCook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's OK as a stub, but needs more relevant references to be useful. Is there not some kind of template to structure information on US corporations and business entities?T0mpr1c3 (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Just a private consulting firm going about its business. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2018 (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.