Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifth Street Asset Management


 * 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. Consensus is that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Fifth Street Asset Management

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP, seems overly promotional JMHamo (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails also WP:PROMOTION Tymon. r   Do you have any questions?  15:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as clear spam —Мандичка YO 😜 16:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.      According to http://blogs.forbes.com/people/abbynyhk/, Abby Latour has worked as a journalist for 20 years, at companies including Reuters and McGraw Hill Financial. <li> Journalist Chase Peterson-Withorn is listed as a Forbes staff member.</li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fifth Street Asset Management to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Delete as promotion: Its internal claims to notability are that S&P recognizes it (quelle surprize!) and that a group of banker-lawyers gave it a "good chap" award. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject has received significant coverage from high quality, well-respected finance publications like Reuters, Bloomberg Businessweek, and Forbes. According to Bloomberg Businessweek here, in October 2014 the company was "an alternative asset manager with $5.6 billion under management". I reviewed the Wikipedia article, and it appears neutrally written to me. This article should not be deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging User:EBY3221, who accepted the article at WP:AFC and, who declined the speedy deletion tag. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep In my experiences, right around 100 employees is where most companies start to attract good enough source material to start a stub and so we can reasonably question the notability of most orgs around that size. In this case, there are multiple bylined press articles in established national level publications where the company is the subject of the article and a few weaker sources as well that are usable. I did some anti-promotional trimming, but I don't think it was promotional enough to be identified as spam and warrant deletion. CorporateM (Talk) 06:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * SPEEDY DELETE - if you look at what I accepted and what the article looks like now, it's pretty obvious that the editor is attempting to use Wikipedia to lend notability and puffery to a small company whose notability lies in having its IPO go wrong. And THAT information has been redacted, again. EBY (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not cleanup. This "small company" manages over $6 billion and had a successful IPO according to Bloomberg Businessweek (source). The article does not violate db-spam because it is not a page that is "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". The article doesn't have a promotional tone and is neutrally written, so it is unclear why editors are calling it "clear spam". And that there was an earlier version of the article that you found acceptable when you reviewed it at WP:AFC strongly indicates that you are voting delete based on surmountable issues. If the current version of the article was "clear spam" (which it is not), then it could be reverted back to the version you found acceptable. Cunard (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - per User:Cunard, it clearly meets WP:GNG. Yes, it needs a cleanup to remove advertorial content, but it's had a lot of coverage in reliable sources. mikeman67 (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article still seems a bit promotional, but it meets WP:CORP. Significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources is demonstrated by press coverage of: the IPO (Forbes 1, MarketWatch, Forbes 2, Bloomberg Business 1, and Greenwich Time ), moving the headquarters to Greenwich (Stamford Advocate and The Daily Voice), and, now that the company is public, ongoing market and analyst reports (Bloomberg Business 2 and Morningstar). Worldbruce (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources presented by Cunard, which are sufficient for a pass of GNG. Carrite (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - source coverage passes WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep- It doesn't have enough of a promotional tone to be deleted or marked as spam. Also source coverage passes WP:GNG and coverage is reliable. 2605:A601:5DF:7C01:F426:81EC:CD00:1868 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 15:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Wall122 (talk
 * Keep - Sure, it definitely needs a cleanup, particularly a good copy edit in some parts, but it is certainly notable enough. Not sure where the promotional accusations are coming from... - Pax  Verbum  06:37, 19 June 2015 (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.