Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewVantage 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

NewVantage Partners

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PRODed this but didn't spot that it was PRODed before so it was declined - This article is spammy spam native advertising that does not meet WP:NCORP - sources are mentions and don't offer any independent analysis Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * KEEP Do people actually do any researcher into companies before marketing them for deletion? If so they would see it more than meets the criteria for notability. That being said the article is over-cited, poorly cited missing key information and should be re-done. Freetheangels (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , how does it meet the criteria for notability? Please read WP:N and WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me expand on the promotional aspect - with phrases like "leader in Big Data strategy consulting and executive thought-leadership", and with an entire section devoted to their "Thought Leadership" - this is almost a G11 worthy article, and should be deleted on the basis of promotion even (not that it meets WP:NCORP either) Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick google search brings up significant coverage which means its notable by WP:GNG that being said should it remain on Wikipedia? Well if the writer who created the article cleaned it up because right now it a clear mess. Maybe in all fairness, this article should be made into a draft giving the writer time to make improvements. Freetheangels (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , please link the coverage; that coverage must satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, and I don't see sources that do; WP:N is also not the only factor for keeping an article, per WP:DEL14 promotional articles can also be deleted per WP:NOTPROMO Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Beyond that, the article is entirely promotional, to the point of being G11 eligible. "Thought Leadership" section, really? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Has a certain smell of UPE and does not meet NCORP. Sam Sailor 15:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No basis for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2018 (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.