Deletion of Probitas Partners

Comment: Whatever can be said about notability, this article, apparently about a small firm offering investment funds, is vaguely written in glittering generalities in a way that suggests that it is #G11|obvious advertising: ''a global investment bank focused on raising capital as a placement agent for private equity fund sponsors as well as providing portfolio management and liquidity solutions, through the private equity secondary market, for investors in private equity.''  Also, the chief content is a listing of its product offering.  Most of the sources do not appear to have this business as their primary subjects, even if members of the firm are interviewed in them.  Some are blogs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: That was quite a lengthy commentary.  My main point is that this is one of the two or three largest and most well known placement agents.  Placement agents - as discussed in one of the references - are a big topic in finance recently given the NY Pensions scandal being pursued by Andrew Cuomo.  Additionally, you are mischaracterizing the coverage - the fact that a senior banker from UBS went to Probitas was a newsworthy story - newsworthy enough to get picked up in the New York Times Deal Book.  And what you call a blog is a fact-checked component of the New York Times that has been widely validated in previous AfD discussions.  In fact, you are missing the whole point - if the company were not notable it wouldn't get referenced in the NY Times or the WSJ.  The WSJ frequently uses Probitas as a source of info and comments in their articles - not once but frequently.  Does there need to be a twenty page Vanity Fair article to prove that a company is notable?  The company is consistently and repeatedly mentioned in major publications - that we would all agree is the case and that is clearly within the spirit and the standard established in .  The article needs improved references, granted.  Whether or not I have the time to edit an article's references at this moment should not determine whether an article gets deleted.  I would encourage you to look at companies that get deleted on notability - they are never mentioned in any of these publications.  My real question is what is achieved by deleting a stub article about a company with multiple references in major publications - I am trying to help salvage something worthwhile.  Also I would note that even the nominating editor in a side discussion admitted that he probably should not have nominated
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: Sure, but if the NYT or WSJ writes about pork belly futures over and over again, it's pretty strong evidence that pork bellies are notable, even if each mention is somewhat less than substantial; the fact that they keep writing about them means that people consider them significant. A major international newspaper does not publish stories about a businessman changing jobs unless the fact that they did so is, in fact, notable. Per , companies do not need to be the subject of articles in third-party sources in order to be notable. The sheer number of citations in extremely high-quality sources has to count here even when some of the citations are not up to your personal standard of significance
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: As of now, none of the article's references seem to establish the company's notability. Most of them only offer some sort of trivial or non-independent coverage; some of them don't even mention Probitas Partners at all. Per , we need ''reliable, independent secondary sources with nontrivial coverage'' to prove the company's |notability and keep the article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:N)

Comment: I think you're overstating your case a little there, Urban. I might have held off as a courtesy, but that's about it. Now that the discussion is underway, I think we need to take a careful look at the issue at hand, which is what constitutes "substantial coverage" for  purposes. "Fred Novotny has gone from UBS to Probitas" is not substantial coverage, even if it appears in the ''WSJ'' or ''NYT''; it's the equivalent of "September pork bellies were up 3 cents in light trading." Passing mentions don't qualify
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:CORP)