Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shot Tower 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.  Sandstein  09:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shot Tower Capital

Shot Tower 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)

Rejected at AfC as WP:ARTSPAM,moved into mainspace by main contributor. Reads like an advertisement, and does not establish corporate notability Mduvekot (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete It's marginal: there are articles in Billboard and Variety about the formation of the company (although they focus as much on the people involved as the company, and a tenuous link with Michael Jackson is also mentioned prominently), but after that it's all passing mentions or press releases. A little bit more press coverage focused on the company would establish notability, but you could argue that existing coverage is focused on a single event (the founding by individuals of minor newsworthiness) and is less of the firm than of the actions of its founders. For a firm to be notable, I'd expect at least continuing press coverage of its actions over time. I don't know if David Dunn might be a notable individual. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I obviously believe is notable enough or would not have moved to mainspace after researching and editing. There appears to be continuing coverage of this company as well, will continue to add those citations. Thanks. EricPfromTustin (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Active company and simple Google search yields plenty of coverage and sourcing. Also does not read like advertisement in my opinion. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND as they are either routine annoucements of company activity or they are straight-up company announcements. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note added one more citation that adds just a tiny bit more third party independent sourcing about this company itself.EricPfromTustin (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- notability is not inherited from notable clients, and there's nothing else there. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources provide detailed coverage about Shot Tower Capital's founding and its work providing merger and acquisition advice. Cunard (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Everything here is an announcement. The Variety one, emphasised above, even says its "based on their press release". The others are even more minor. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with HighKing and DGG. The sources are what we usually call "routine business transactions" when discussing corp articles that end up getting deleted. The text of the article confirms: company "worked with XXX", exec "testified to ZZZ", but very little about what makes this company notable. - Bri (talk) 20:02, 29 June 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.