Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avem Capital

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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avem Capital (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)

Fails CORPDEPTH, not having any significant coverage about the company that is independent. That is obviously reflected in the article itself, having as much about the founders as the company. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom as the article and sources drifts away from the subject. Otr500 (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- an unremarkable hedge fund; nothing stands out about this one and no SIGCOV to support notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with OP and others above, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable company; promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2017 (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.