Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STS 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. J04n(talk page) 18:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

STS Partners

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not nearly enough coverage in article or BEFORE to show WP:CORPDEPTH. Neither as "STS Partners" or "STS Capital Partners". Icewhiz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - The page could certainly benefit from having additional RS but there should be enough currently to establish notability. Also, the firm continuously ranks high on Barron’s list of "Best 100 Hedge Funds", which is notable in and of itself isn't it? Meatsgains (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCATALOG. No SNG I am aware of has such a criteria, and this fund simply is not recieving coverage. The gnews hit count is very low, and what there is is not in depth.Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm seeing entirely WP:ROUTINE coverage for this fund. They bought this other fund or security or they invested in that venture or they were a party in the other law suit.  None of it is especially significant, and what is significant is not independent.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP; just an unremarkable firm going about its business. When one sees a section on "Awards and honors", it's tell-tale sign that the article has been created with promotional intent, and that's it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete while Wikipedia often has an anti-business bias, in this case there is just not enough non-routine coverage to fall under WP:CORPDEPTH Earnsthearthrob (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The crux of the article rests in one link. I note the validity of the corporation, but not crossing the WP:SIGCOV threshold. The other links are of modest or self-described WP:OR. I agree that this may be WP:TOOSOON. Ventric (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ++ 14:09, 27 December 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.