- 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. North America 1000 23:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Associated Partners LP
- Associated Partners LP ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of any significant notability. Many refs but most just confirm that the company exists and are directory or similar listings. Others are peripheral. None demonstrate the company is notable . Fails WP:GNG Velella Velella Talk 13:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hello
Velella, I see you nominated this article for deletion while it was already nominated before and finally stayed online. The company is part of the biggest telecommunication actors in the United States with influent and reliable sources for justification. I am presently trying my best to update it with trustworthy content and I therefore don't see any reason why you should do this! Best regards,
Erica Remaley (
talk) 13:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Weak keep[1], [2] and [3] show some notability. Plus some of the subscription-required ones looked like they were good and about the company. Joseph2302 ( talk) 13:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. APerson ( talk!) 13:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - The coverage in reliable sources is superficial. There does not seem to be any indepth coverage about the company, it's history or anything other that brief mentions of some deals. It may be an important company, but it obviously operates behind the scenes. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 14:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
*Keep There is some notability, per the links provided above.
SilverSurfingSerpent (
talk) 16:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC) (Striking comment by blocked sockpuppet. --
MelanieN (
talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC))
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 19:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 19:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 17:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 17:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weak delete On reflection, those sources don't show quite enough WP:ORGDEPTH to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Joseph2302 ( talk) 17:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - the references are common corporate database entries and articles regarding 2 deals in which the subject has engaged, but without discussing the subject in any detail. Nothing suggests WP:ORGDEPTH criteria are met.-- Rpclod ( talk) 02:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- 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.