Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynx Equity Ltd

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx Equity Ltd

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

Per WP:NCORP. The sources need to be checked for WP:CORPDEPTH. A large portion of the sources are briefly state menthes about normal functions of any financial services firm - I don't reel as though their is anything significantly noteworthy about the company that would warrant a WP page at this time. Comatmebro (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This appears to be a borderline case, with several of the sources right on the threshold of CORPDEPTH. The sheer amount of sourcing pushes it over the line, just barely, toward "keep" for me. I also should note that as the nominator it's your responsibility to check the sources for CORPDEPTH before making the deletion nomination, instead of leaving it to others to do so. CJK09 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added independent in-depth references from reliable sources.ViktoriaCerena (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — ViktoriaCerena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Summoned by ViktoriaCerena on my talk page. Notability is established with the addition of reliable sources detailing the company. Meatsgains (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Copiously referenced with news-release style notices in trade journals, there seems to be nothing in Gnews from the sort of truly independent, reliable business media that would meet satisfy our requirements. I also strongly disagree with the suggestion that the "sheer amount of sourcing" from non-reliable publications somehow pushes this past the mark. I'm not sure why a new WP:SPA has popped up to create this article on a minor ~~Canadian~~ North American financial firm, but I don't think this belongs here, based on the quality -- not mere quantity -- of sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking through "Canadian." Company has expanded to the US. Let's add to that deletion sorting, as well, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is clear that the "Keep" !voters above are misinterpreting the guidelines for notability, especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. References derived from company PR, company announcements and normal business announcements do not meet the criteria for establishing notability since they are not "intellectually" independent. The quantity of sources only suggests a functional PR department. ViktoriaCerena suggests that "independent in-depth references from reliable sources" have been added but looking at the sources added, it is clear that while the sources may be independent, the articles are not since they rely almost exclusively on company material with no independent opinion or commentary. For example, this added references from privateequitywire is not independent as it is a joint announcement from the company and the law firm that advised them on an acquisition and fails ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH. This reference from pehub.com is an interview with the company president, offers no independent commentary or opinion, and fails CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. I could go on but you get the point. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "45th fastest growing finance companies in Canada by Profit Magazine" is hardly a claim of significance. The sources are PR-driven and not independent of the subject; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Basically, corporate spam for a nn organisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. should be deleted as an attempt at promotion, regardless of notability, but in addition the sources for notability are insufficiently independent or substantial -- situation which tends to confirm the promotional nature of the article DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 14 September 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.