Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton Lane


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hamilton Lane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination on behalf of. They offered no rationale, but after looking into the matter, I believe that the notability of this company is unclear. The company does exist, which is good as far as it goes, but I don't see anything in third party, independent sources that talks about the company as a company. I see lots of PR newswire-style market movements - Hamilton Lane added X company to Y fund and such - but that doesn't confer notability. Even if the company were notable, we lack sources with which to build a proper article. I'm happy to withdraw this if someone can find sources showing the company to be notable, but I'm coming up blank. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment -- searching for "Hamilton Lane" "private equity" yields some coverage, such as "Hamilton Lane Slams Secondaries as Zombie Lifeline" & more (link). But it's mostly about the deals it participated in, other firms it plans to acquire, and funds it raised. So it appears to be an entity of some note, as an advisor to pension funds, but I'm not sure if this is sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH and GNG. Ping for comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete on second thoughts. I cannot find anything better that what I included above. Insufficient to meet GNG and COPRDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:29, 30 August 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.