Deletion of Glenview Capital Management

Comment: or '''Redirect''' to Larry Robbins. I understand where DGG is coming from but nothing in the guidelines assigns a monetary value to notability. Instead, the notability criteria for companies and organizations requires two references that provide significant in-depth intellectually-independent coverage on the company. The  guidelines further clarifies that articles that are substantially based on company announcements or run-of-the-mill listings fail the criteria. Also, notability isn't inherited - therefore the articles profiling the CEO or commenting on their involvement with various business transactions, no matter how contentious, likewise fails the criteria. From my reading, not a single one of the references provided here or in the article, nor any references I could locate myself, meet the criteria. Also, from  ''Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.'' The references provided above by Pegnawl fail the criteria when measured against these requirements. Topic therefore fails GNG and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

Comment: The argument for merge would have to apply to George Soros and Soros Fund Management too, so I disagree. For  the first bullet under examples of substantial coverage is a news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger. This article also has been changed substantially since the proposed deletion and should be voted on what is there right now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: per nomination. Using arguments such as "|other stuff exists", e.g. about the article on George  Soros (even if correct about that) leads nowhere. Subject simply fails . The efforts of fellow editors, especially members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Private Equity|related task forces, are welcome and quite admirable, at least by me, but the contested article is well presented puffery
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE||WP:NCORP)