Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexington 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. (Similar rationale, same consensus, as Articles for deletion/Landmark Partners Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lexington Partners

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. 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 WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; as of right now, no evidence of notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See also my comments on Coller Capital and Landmark Partners.


 * 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) 14:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. 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) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ”Verifiability”???? .. 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) 20:27, 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)


 * Weak Delete Admittedly, this reads like an advertisement for an important company; it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article. A good rewrite would justify saving this article.


 * Please refer back to the page. I have gone through and made a number of changes to address some of the items cited above.Urbanrenewal (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Check the WP:Spam noticeboard for these users and domain names. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I wrote this page and have made substantial further edits in response to the comments above. I think everyone will agree that the page is now substantial in content and fairly balanced, with a section on competitors, etc.  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, Landmark 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) 03:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep anothermajor company. sources to show it, and t hat amounts to notability. Most of us perhaps arent too interested in the business world, but that';s not an argument for deletion. DGG (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with Eastmain/DGG. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 10:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although it's not as clear-cut as Landmark Partners but all the requisite pieces are in place to establish WP:CORP. There's still more work to do here, but on the whole, deletion is no longer appropriate here. B.Wind (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:CORP. References are largely press releases; no independent coverage. Frank  |  talk  00:41, 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.