Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfair Capital Investment Management

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfair Capital Investment Management

[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)

The reason we are asking for this page to be deleted as we are changing our name to our parent company Swiss Life Asset Managers. As they no longer have a wikipedia page either, we need to have this one removed so that it does not confuse clients as Mayfair Capital will cease to exist from the 15th May 2023. I am the marketing associate at Mayfair Capital hence why I am asking for this to be removed on behalf of the company. MunsatMCIM55 (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that’s not a reason to delete. The article can simply be updated to include the renaming with a red link to SLAM. If an organisation was ever notable it remains notable for Wikipedia purposes even after it ceases to exist. Mccapra (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand that but as Swiss Life Asset Managers do not have a Wikipedia page, we would prefer to delete as it will confuse clients. A lot of the information on the current page is also now very dated so if it were to stay up, the majority of would need to be deleted as it's irrelevant. It would make it easier if the page was taken down for that sake. MunsatMCIM55 (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but that’s still not a reason for deletion. We’re not here to keep clients updated but to provide an independent and authoritative record of a company even if it no longer exists. I’m happy to edit the article to make clear that the information is not current, and if you can give me links to a couple of sources for the name change I’ll add them in. Mccapra (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve updated the article as I suggested above, and am therefore !voting to keep it. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok great, thank you very much for making those updates! MunsatMCIM55 (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per WP:CSK#1 and/or WP:CSK#3—no valid deletion rationale is given. I do not have the time to dig in to the history to see if the company is actually notable, so I make explicit note that this !vote is solely based on the lack of valid rationale advanced by the nominator; I have no prejudice against speedy renomination for deletion on substantial grounds. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:40, 20 May 2023 (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.