Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renaissance Capital (US company)


 * 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   no consensus. v/r - TP 19:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Renaissance Capital (US company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:NOTADVERT. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to Renaissance Capital. . Has several links but they seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - thinly disguised spam for a non-notable, privately-held company. The only reliable source in the article discusses one of its investments, not the firm itself, which appears to be a run-of-the-mill investing company. The banality of the name makes an Internet search for sources to be nigh well impossible. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. About half an hour after the above comment I added a feature article at BusinessWeek from 1998. The article goes into considerable detail vis-a-vis the company, its background, founders, operations, etc., and establishes its notability per WP:CORP. There's nothing "nigh well impossible" about searching for information relating to the company on the internet. What there is is some difficulty on account of Russia's largest private investment bank having the same name; but coming up with irrelevant search results is easily avoided by, for example, adding the name of one of the founders to the search query. Meanwhile, Kathleen Shelton represented Renaissance Capital before a U.S. Senate hearing just a couple of months ago: "Testimony of Ms. Kathleen Shelton Smith"; Renaissance employees are frequent guests on Bloomberg as IPO experts, including Facebook's mega-IPO: search YouTube for "renaissance capital" + ipo; Nasdaq.com cites Renaissance for information on IPOs all the time, as do Reuters and plenty of other RSes.—Biosketch (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Under WP:GNG, we need multilple good sources. Can you find something since 1998? Bearian (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've yet to incorporate it into the article but there's this rather comprehensive article from the December 2006 issue of Stocks and Commodities.—Biosketch (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep BusinessWeek and LA Times equals two articles in reliable sources where the organization is the subject of the article. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 08:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While there is mention of the company in those links, they fail WP:CORPDEPTH as the first is essentially the same as inclusion in lists of similar organizations, and the other is a standard press release/Press kit companies send to news agencies...in case its Bloomberg which was repeated by the La Times.--Hu12 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but what does "same as inclusion in lists of similar organizations" mean? It's an article exclusively about Renaissance, not about Renaissance and other organizations similar to it. And as for the LA Times piece being derived from a press release or press kit, where's there an indication that that's the case?—Biosketch (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Appears to have sufficient coverage to justify inclusion ' Ankh '. Morpork  16:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I consider this about as non-notable as possible. First, it's a three-person company. Second, their only quantifiable project, their fund, has a capital of less than $12 million (down from a peak of $20 million) which is about as trivial as one can get--and that's after over ten years in the business. As a private firm, there's no way to document the extent of their business than that number, and their staff size.   It wouldn't make a person notable as an investor, and much less a company.  The articles are either straight or disguised PR. The LA times one included. the BusinessWeek article uses them only as an example.  No respectable promotional author would I hope have accepted this assignment; I prefer to imagine it was someone associated with the company: the naivité  of actually trying a see also to their Business school in addition to the proper link in the text is exceptionally crude article writing, and giving a bold heading to each of their products is just as crude, though unfortunately more common.     If we do keep an article, the financial data needs to be added.  ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:24, 19 May 2012‎
 * Keep: Passes WP:CORP. LA Times does not look like a press release. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete LA Times is WP:ROUTINE (and pretty short too) and nothing else comes close to indepth and independent. If new WP:RS are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I have now identified exactly three good sources (LA Times, BusinessWeek, and Dec. 2006 Stcoks & Commodities) that discuss the firm and its philosophy, but not all in depth. I agree that it passes at least barely. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2012 (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.