Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probitas Partners
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
— User:Urbanrenewal, 15:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:CORP (Wikipedia:Notability)