Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivaldi Partners Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi Partners Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced article about a small consulting firm. The available sources consist of press releases and trivial mentions. I am unable to find independent sources that in cover the subject in depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the CEO is Erich Joachimsthaler. There is a page here and on German WP of the CEO. I'm not sure if that matters, in terms of the notability of the company. I found very little to work with on Google search, google news, google books. Mostly just press releases, user generated content, and a few very brief mentions of the company, usually as an identifier in an interview of somebody working for the company. Probably can delete, but I will remain neutral for now.--Gaff (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree, notability not established, references are either primary or trivial mentions. Gaff and Ged UK both bring up the CEO, Erich Joachimsthaler, having an article, but that article has dubious notability as well, as I brought up on its Talk page. Mmyers1976 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 27 February 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, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:36, 6 March 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.