Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eaton Partners (2nd nomination)

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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eaton Partners

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find sources meeting CORPDEPTH, nevermind multiple such articles as would be required under our guidelines. joe decker ^talk 02:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches noticeably only found several press releases and passing mentions, nothing at all to suggest even a minimally better notable article. Notifying past AfD users Lankiveil, Fiachra10003, Doncram and BethNaught in case they're not aware of this current AfD. SwisterTwister talk 08:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure why you don't think there's WP:CORPDEPTH. The Bloomberg article is a perfectly clear-cut discussion of the company, and the WSJ and Columbia Business article are pretty good. The WSJ article is not directly about Eaton but certainly discussed the company in some depth; the Columbia Business article discussed the company directly but is arguably not a nationally-recognized journal (no bitching, please, Columbia alum Wikipedians!). The article needs work, but that's never a reason for AfD. I may have a go at improving this one. P.S. Thanks SwisterTwister for prompting me. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge looks like the firm has been acquired by Stifel Financial, retain the article's history as a redirect. 009o9 (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair observation, but this would be premature as the acquisition has been "agreed" but almost can't happen until some time in 2016. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FWIW I hope this can be relisted a third and last time with hopes for better comments. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per nominator's request —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company is covered fairly regularly by the private equity, hedge fund press as well as larger publications such as the Wall Street Journal. The acquisition by Stifel Financial, which closed on Jan. 4 give this company increased prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.59.247 (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.