Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paine Schwartz 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 moved to Draft:Paine Schwartz Partners pending improvement. There may be some hope for this as an article, but it is clearly not ready for mainspace. I have moved it to draft space, where it can be improved, with the caveat that it must be submitted for admin review before being restored to mainspace. To this end, I have locked the mainspace title and move-locked the draft. Of course, if the article is not improved, it will eventually be deleted as an abandoned draft. bd2412 T 05:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Paine Schwartz Partners

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability. Sourcing is poor but searches reveal little that is any better. A bloomberg item noting the name change and a few others noting simple company data. Nothing of any notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 22:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong Keep. It was in bad shape, agreed, but I've added several secondary RS to support referenced material and have removed unreferenced material. Notable due to its controversial, litigious history as well as the many recent and current investments in global food supply tech and receiving WP:SIGCOV for doing so from Reuters, WSJ and Fortune, among others. Could use more work, certainly, but given the wide array of RS available since the firms inception in 2007, there's no reason to toss the baby. Pegnawl (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - text is about predecessors and other people, not about the firm. List of investments doesn't look notable either. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Filled with puffed-up language such as "investment platform focused on sustainable food chain investing!" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2017 (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.