Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artemis Investment Management LLP


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Artemis Investment Management LLP

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable (contested PROD, on basis of a minor mention in a BBC news article). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Additional article added from Financial Times - predominantly about Artemis IM LLP. Artemis is a 'household name' of UK investment companies — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROBEST (talk • contribs) 14:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in this household. The link you added is dead; please check the URL. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment They are well-known, figuring in various business stories: see these recent Guardian articles:  . There is also indication of an award in 2003, although the financial sector can be a bit all-must-have-prizes. But though the name is known, I'm unconvinced that these add up to notability. AllyD (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2012 (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) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep - anybody who knows anything about investment management in the UK has heard of Artemis: they are a big player. I am really pretty gobsmacked by this AFD, when you see the masses of articles on eg. disused railway stations or 10th century bishops/abbots mentioned once in a chronicle. But, seeing as Wikipedia is as nuts as Wikipedia is, I'll play the silly game: so, per WP:VERIFY, Artemis Fund Managers has 503 hits at Google Books, and Artemis Investment Management has 1010 hits. The search word "Artemis" is very problematic, for obvious reasons, but if a miniscule confectionary brand can have a Wikipedia article, then so can a major financial services company. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Keep – The above comment from Mais oui! summarises the issue perfectly. I will only add that I had heard of them prior to reading the article and after checking their profile in various reliable media outlets and financial publications, I think that this meets the notability requirements easily BarkingNigel (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2012 (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.