Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eaton Partners


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 04:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Eaton Partners

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spammy article on a non-notable company, the NYT is barely more than repeating the name of the company, the WSJ is in the blogs, the rest is fluff. Looks like COI editing, based on the first edit. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  19:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'm not convinced this is notable. The sources are either PR or not at arms' length (such as the alumni magazine), and mention the company either in a short paragraph or just in name. A Google/News search doesn't throw up anything impressive. BethNaught (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: This company appears to be one of the largest and most influential in the placement agent industry - obviously an industry that editors believe is important as they have devoted a page to it. Placement agents, while little known outside of the finance industry, are important middlemen between powerful private equity firms and hedge funds and pension funds and endowments. Eaton is listed as one of the players in the placement agent industry. Other firms in this industry also have Wiki entries including smaller firms such as Atlantic-Pacific Capital, Campbell Lutyens, Probitas Partners, and Triago. These pages are substantially similar to this page. Given the controversial nature of these firms, they have tended to be behind the scenes and mainstream media has not covered them extensively. . It seems that Wikipedia serves the public good by offering an unbiased description of these firms. Should any of them get accused of wrongdoing, their pages will be there to edit. Ny0043 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: For the same reasons as those cited by Ny0043. Notability in the private equity and hedge fund industries can be difficult to judge because regulatory constraints mean that they don't publicize themselves in the regular media, but $57 billion raised (as cited in the article) makes them more notable than the smaller firms mentioned by Ny0043.    Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 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 05:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete, probably a company that is good at what they do, but I'm not seeing any independent or non-routine coverage that would indicate they meet WP:CORP or the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep, per Ny00043 and Fiachra10003. -- do ncr  am  05:17, 4 August 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 02:24, 11 August 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.