Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamra-Tacoma Capital 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. Nobody apart from a WP:SPA opposes the deletion.  Sandstein  08:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Tamra-Tacoma Capital Partners

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP. Two or three independent sources merely establish that the company lends money. No true in-depth info as required by notability guideline. Brianhe (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Company is not a lender; Private equity firm with reputable sources inclusive of Bloomberg. See CIVC Partners, Olympus Partners, Pamlico Capital and Morgenthaler for ref. ContentCrea (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The WP article is a quotation from the Tamra-Tacoma web-site and is just an advertisement for Tamra-Tacoma. The article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.12.160 (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Lending and equity are much the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.29.26 (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Undecided. There is a favorable opinion column focusing on the company at http://www. examiner.com, which is on the WP blacklist for some reason. I don't know if this is enough to keep this article, though. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's actually an explanation as to why it's blacklisted, it has been notorious for allowing itself to be confused with the San Francisco Examiner and other reliability issues (believe me, I've found some good stuff that can be used here at Wiki but there's need to be uplifting and covincing consensus for removing it). SwisterTwister   talk  05:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  12:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 04:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 04:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 04:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 04:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete for now as my searches found nothing convincingly good, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister   talk  05:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  06:09, 28 August 2015 (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.