Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evestment


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Evestment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a company that fails to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. The sources given:


 * 1, 2, 3 and 4 are essentially WP:DICTDEF with no bearing on the subject.
 * 5 is just an announcement about an acquisition.
 * 6 is a press release hosted on the company's website
 * 7 is another announcement on the Financial Times, which is not accessible without a registration.
 * 8 is another acquisition press release
 * 9 is a quote of a ranking among 5,000 other companies.
 * 10 Seems to assert notability, but it is behind a paywall.
 * 11 is a press release.

I could not find any other material that could help establish notability, just press releases and self-generated content. is an SPA which has no other contributions to Wikipedia. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nomination, also spam and too vague to improve by editing: a.... software solutions provider offering a SaaS-hosted database and analytic platform primarily used in the institutional investor and financial services community for analysis, reporting and research. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - these aren't good sources. Deb (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm far from convinced of notability, but must point out that there is no requirement that sources should be freely available on the Internet. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Possible delete - My first Google News archives search provided original or republished press releases with one Atlanta Journal Constitution: Metro Atlanta's top 100 workplaces on the second page which seems to mention them but it requires payment and the preview is vague. A search for Jim Minnick and Matt Crisp provided both relevant press releases and potentially useful Pensions and Investments articles (vague previews and require payment). I also found this which mentions the acquisition of Fundspire and PerTrac. I also found this from when the company started in 2000 which doesn't provide much and mainly talks about what they hope to do. As for Heath Wilson, I also found press releases except this which briefly mentions the company. A Google News search and archives search for EVestment Hedgefund provided several recent references in which EVestment's financial reports are mentioned. I've found mostly press releases for the London and Hong Kong expansion searches and nothing for the Canada one. I found more press releases when I searched the "Must Be In" and the "Most Influential Database" achievements. I found press releases for all of the acquisitions but no significant news articles. Although the INC. rankings may be signficant and this article claims they were "one of the first technology investment funds to come to the stockmarket, listing on Aim in 1997", a large amount of press releases and few significant news articles is usually a concern and it seems they haven't received much news attention recently aside from the published reports. SwisterTwister   talk  22:03, 2 March 2013 (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.