Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Catalyst 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 keep. SarahStierch (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- General Catalyst Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article with no evidence of . notabilityA list of a firms investments has a place, but the place is on the firms website and it's other promotional material. It's primary interest is for those who might be considering doing business with it. A list of all the managing directors likewise--it is not encyclopedic content. Ad there is essentially no other content. DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:CORP. There does, in fact, seem to be evidence of notability, as per the references to Reuters and Boston.com already in the article, as well as the following: [1] [2] [3] Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 01:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: I'm rather surprised that the nom, a veteran of AfD, managed to ignore the Boston Globe, Reuters and Bloomberg as sources which absolutely pass the GNG. If the article is too promotional, edit it. If there's unencyclopedic content in it, remove it. If the result isn't very long, hang a stub tag on it. WP:BEFORE was completely ignored in this case. Ravenswing 05:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per RS above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2013 (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.