Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks Macdonald


 * 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. joe deckertalk 01:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Brooks Macdonald

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article provides no evidence of notability Maproom (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

How am I able to add notability? We have external references from the London Stock Exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstewart1988 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * you need to find some reliable published independent sources, with significant discussion of the subject, and cite them in the draft. The LSE links establish that the company exists, but they are more registry entries than actual discussion. Incidentally – are you the Peter Stewart who is Digital Marketing Executive at Brooks Macdonald? If you are, please read Conflict of interest, you have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from editing the article (though I must admit, you have avoided bias and promotional language). Maproom (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep There is, I think, a presumption that public companies are notable, so this does scrape through IMO but it does need work. ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)



I've added several reputable sources in the history section. Would this provide eveidence of notability?  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as my own searches have simply found nothing better and my examining the article also found nothing convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable company. Tom29739 [ talk ] 21:45, 30 June 2016 (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.