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. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Wartenberg Trust

Wartenberg Trust (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This is a very good article, but the company is a private office and it is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry Claralopezrichmond ( talk) 11:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete - reminds me of Alta Advisors, I used to vaguely know someone who worked for them. Unfortunately, it's hard for this kind of "company" (really effectively a very big joint trust fund) to get notable since they have few or no public shareholders and are answerable only to the families on whose behalf they operate. So they can only be notable for the investments they make, and few will be able to make the kind that generate articles very often. The content might be mergable with an article on the family, but there doesn't seem to be one. Blythwood ( talk) 21:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- I cannot find any coverage or indications of notability. There's a brief mention in a 3rd party research report: "Mark Zapletal, adviser at the Wartenberg Trust, says: “Quite simply, our clients favour assets they can touch.” ( Stonehdge Flemming), but that's it. For a private and (I assume) secretive fund, this is to be expected. At the same time it means that the sources would not be out there to build an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- I know vaguely of the FO and having worked in the industry I know that most family offices hate all publicity (good or bad). Wartenberg Trust is known as a very powerful FO in terms of influence and assets. They invest in "big name" companies through complex arrangements including SPVs, trusts etc. I doubt that we would be able to get reference materials for the firm. Frankly, I am surprised that they allowed FT to use the quote. 141.92.19.35 ( talk) 14:57, 15 August 2016 (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.