Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AES International


 * 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. The only policy based arguments are for deletion Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  05:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

AES International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Highly promotional article for a small non-notable firm with routine PER-based references. Fastest growing is meaningless in terms of notability when you're as small as this. I interpret it as a clear statement of "not yet notable"  The article, just as an advertisement would, lists all their routine list of services, and listing all the execs. Firms that need advertising should  post in in an appropriate place.  DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: The Economist piece on the firm and its founder is the most substantial but is still in terms of "fastest-growing ... in proportionate terms". Searching is not helped by a profusion of articles about AES Corporation but I am not seeing anything to suggest this is more than a financial advisor firm going about its routine niche business; not of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: The second reference is credible in terms of the Fast Track 100 as are other online references when typing the full name of the company/searching links. I have edited out the list of services and execs listed by DGG and will attempt better referencing over the next month. Alligazy3(talk) 19:34, 05 Janaury 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Looks to me like a major international stockbroker, possibly a re-creation of an earlier one, sold to an insurance comapny. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep - Looks fine to me - top 50 in UK and 15 offices with some intellectual capital of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.234.6 (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)  — 91.74.234.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: This has been edited recently to improve and remove points listed by DGG. Article specifically on the business within the Economist, mention of it by Branson and Sunday Times plus presence international presence indicate of encyclopaedic notability.XuiChen (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — XuiChen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: Notable in terms of size and substance. My verdict of encyclopaedic notabilityDavidan123 (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC) — Davidan123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: LibraryS (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC) — LibraryS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep:86.99.80.95 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC) — 86.99.80.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * ... a pocket full of socks? Welcome to Wikipedia! הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 04:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and have a close look at the related and similar article, Sam Instone. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 04:27, 16 January 2014 (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.