Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesirow Financial

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mesirow Financial

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article looks like an advertisement to me. Roll it back? Well, the article was promotional even when it was first created. It doesn't really matter whether or not the company meets the GNG or WP:CORP: the article is promotional.

Please slow-delete per CSD G11.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though the article is looking advertised, i believe after clean up it will be notable contribution to WikiProject Companies. Remember most of the company articles are originally created by their employees and other stake holding parties which have to be edited accordingly. Mr RD (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr RD.

I see you've only been around since April 2013. Let me explain a little more of my perspective; maybe I will convince you to become a deletionist. It seems to me that, over time, COI users have been creating spam articles at a greater rate than devoted Wikipedians can fix them. If it weren't for deletion, then the problem would be even worse. And so I am a deletionist.

And about the article up for deletion: Anyone is welcome to fix it within the next seven days, but if nobody does, I recommend that it be deleted.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search shows that the company is notable. Promotional articles about notable topics should be edited to remove the promotionalism, as I have tried to do in this case. Nominator, an AfD debate is not the appropriate venue to attempt to recruit less experienced editors to philosophies like "deletionism" or "inclusionism". Let's keep the focus on the notability of the topic, where it belongs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a reasonably large and old organization; deserves to be known. - Altenmann >t 18:32, 8 December 2013 (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.