Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deutsche Standard


 * 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 verifiability problems (no independent sources) are a compelling reason for deletion.  Sandstein  10:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Deutsche Standard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. The company's own website is the only one of the external links which mentions Deutsche Standard at all, and there are no other references. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. If if has an income of over $2 billion then I think it's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment If it has an income of USD 2 bn. This is more than Deutsche Bank, which is what most of the external links were about. I would expect a company of this alleged size to have created a bit more coverage, a (fairly superficial) search come up with nothing substantial.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of reliable sources. Even the company's own web site lacks any claim that it has 2B+ in annual income.  No prejudice against undeletion for the purposes of userfication- or draft-ification upon-request by a established editor provided he immediately adds at least one reliable-source reference that back up some claim of notability.  No prejudice against re-creating a new article or moving a userspace or other draft (including one based on this version) into mainspace provided the article goes through a review process such as WP:AFC or something similar first. If a reliable, independent source that support the 2B+ revenue are provided before the end of this discussion and I don't contribute to this discussion after that edit, change to "abstain".  Better yet, ping me when it happens. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  23:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In this connection, it is perhaps worth mentioning that the article previously contained a claim of having numerous offices throughout the world, which I was unable to find confirmation of anywhere, including on the company's own web site. It is very difficult to imagine that a company with such widespread offices would not have web sites for each of them, as well as a mention of them on the main company website, and equally difficult to imagine that such a global company would not be the subject of substantial coverage in many independent sources. In light of such questionable history of the article, I think it is even more important than usual to discount any claims of importance which are not supported by verifiable sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added citation needed to the annual revenue and added factual accuracy to the multiple issues. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite being a plc, I think the key to his issue is that it is run by "Family office board", which suggests that it is actually a private wealth management company, not a typcial asset management business, managing funds invested by the public. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:42, 16 June 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.