Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landmark 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   Keep per consensus. The COI issue has been addressed, the article is leaning further and further towards NPOV, sources seem to show Notability, therefore passing CORP.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Landmark Partners

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by a user with a WP:COI. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Urbanrenewal has provided references, which are at Talk:Landmark Partners Potatoswatter (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

*: Would you mind cutting that out and pasting it on a page or section in your userspace, then linking that back to here? I'm not saying it isn't helpful information, but it would make it easier for those of us patrolling AfD to scroll by without seeing large amounts of text that isn't really related to the debate over an article. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete sources should be mainstream news outlets. Tickers and press releases don't count. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See Validation of Notability AND Objectivity where I lay out the same argument for articles for Lexington Partners, Coller Capital and Landmark Partners including substantial third party sources Urbanrenewal (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some articles fom the New York Times related to this company. --Eastmain (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's equivalent to saying they're notable because of a corruption scandal where they bribed an official for business. One of your articles is a police blotter. I can make it to the police blotter. They're directly about Ben Andrews anyway. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ”Verifiability”???? these are subscrition links.. the others; Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * RE: Verifiability -- I raised this issue at the Talk page there. Just because it's hard to access a source doesn't mean it's not verifiable, I believe, but you can chime in. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 10:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Specialized newsletters and trade publications can be reliable sources. In particular, I note that Private Equity Analyst is published by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., better known as the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, and therefore I expect that the newsletter is as selective and careful about what it includes as a daily newspaper would be. I note that the newsletter's content is available only to subscribers. There is no requirement that a reliable source's content be available free on the web. --Eastmain (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These guys are in the business of raising capital and publicizing it. Does it sound notable to you that they borrowed 1.x billion USD from various people in order to lend it to someone else? I think a lot of this is more akin to business advertisements. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What's more significant is that the sources are unbiased. I can't access the one referenced, but reports on the business they do are likely to be based on their own press releases. The preview lead paragraph looks like "business is still humming along, as you can see these guys are borrowing and lending!" Potatoswatter (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per my nom. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Article was created by an WP:SPA account. Part of a larger spam campaign that seeded WP with spam articles.
 * See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Check the WP:Spam noticeboard for these users and domain names. Protonk (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The page isn't unduly promotional now that it includes a discussion of the bribery scandal, and I am not sure that it ever was a conflict of interest. Perhaps the article's creator thinks that venture capital firms are interesting, the same way that other editors like to create articles about trains. --Eastmain (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I wrote this page and can attest that I have no conflict of interest. I think everyone will agree that the page is now substantial in content and fairly balanced.  I also think given the references to third party articles and other sources this should be considered a notable topic and worth of keeping on the site.  Please see my work on similar firms in the same space Coller Capital, Lexington Partners and a work-in-progress User:Urbanrenewal/AlpInvest Partners.  i appreciate all of the comments and do not expect to make substantial further additions and would much prefer to let other users comment and adjust the page as necessary. Urbanrenewal (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep In its current (and, presumably, cleaned up) version, the article clearly shows the notability of this company and its role within the private equity sector. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with 'Strong Keep' in cleaned up version. The article is very helpfull for people interested in the private equity sector. boblenin 17:51, 29 April 2008 (PST)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.172.48.134 (talk)
 * Keep clearly notable company and  well sourced. Hu12 is totally wrong that subscription sources are unacceptable. DGG (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Eastmain/DGG. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 10:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant improvement. Sources verify notability now. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep article that is significantly improved since the beginning of this discussion. Sources are in place; notability well established. B.Wind (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - searches reveal press releases, not independent newsworthy items. Frank  |  talk  00:37, 5 May 2008 (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.