Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triago


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Triago

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly a company advertising campaign given the history of multi-accounts active in only specifying what the company would advertise, the sources are simply announcements, listings and mentions, including the ones in supposedly "the best sources" and searches mirrored these exactly, thus there's no substance and especially nothing to satisfy our non-negotiable policies which explicitly allow deletion of company advertising. In the over 6 years this has existed, there's been a noticeable amount of activities to suggest the company accounts knew exactly what they were putting with the equally knowing intentions. When an article has existed for this long and has only obtained trivial attention, it shows it's not significant. The author's comment, "pioneering PE firm that helped develop the profession of placement agent. It's also a noteworthy source of industry data & commentary. " as none of this in fact confirms it since it's all business announcements and it's unacceptable in our policies. SwisterTwister  talk  16:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Purely promotional. Sources consist of advertisements, trivial mentions or dead links. None of the sources establish notability. Possible WP:COI with creator. Fails WP:CORP and WP:NOT applies.  CBS 527 Talk 16:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Dead links will be fixed and footnotes updated with sources in a few days by me. incidentally, existing footnotes backing up claims include no advertisements. A link to the firm's well known, highly regarded and widely cited (in both the trade and generalist financial press) latest quarterly research paper is included, but all other footnote sources/supporting materials are from third parties with no evident conflicts of interest. The deletion note is useful reminder to update footnotes and supporting material. It's my sincere hope that once this article is updated, the deletion inquiry will be shelved. One further point: If you look at the discussion history, you will see that the article was submitted to a full vetting, eventually winning approval from Wikipedia editors after its initial posting. There has been no substantive change to the points made in the article since then, as a review of the editing history will reveal.Lanchner (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- advertorial content; no indications of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Advertising site for a non-notable consultancy firm. Mentioned in passing in press statements, but not as the subject of the press release. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:03, 31 January 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.