Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. AKRadecki 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe

Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not quite spammy enough for a speedy delete, IMO, it still reads rathe like a corporate flyer. More importantly, there are no no-trivial independant citations to establsih notability. DES (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per my nom unlesss notablity celarly established. DES (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Obviously as I created the article I am all for keeping. Not spam. Not an add. We have articles that metion them and they have a pretty significant presence. They OWN two companies that are intrigal to the OPM. I'd say yeah it needs expansion but deletion come on. It's existed for all of 5 minutes give it a chance to develop. AND NO I do not work for them nor am I invested in them either. Side note comparable to Carlyle Group in size and investment. M-BMor 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as it seems like it may be notable. Google search turns up numerous news articles. HeirloomGardener 22:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Sure, needs a rewrite/expansion as a stub but certainly notable enough (after having a look at some of the google hits.) Tagged with cleanup.Mmoneypenny 22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sources for notability
  1. http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2007/04/16/welsh-carson-gets-passing-grade-on-ameripath/
  2. http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/may/16/dallas-based-transfirst-sold-welsh-carson-anderson/
  3. http://www.altassets.net/news/arc/2007/nz10117.php
  4. http://biz.yahoo.com/t/66/334.html
  5. http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2007/1/8/dallas_united_surgical_partners_agrees_to_welsh_carson_buyout_
  6. http://www.vcaonline.com/news/news.asp?ID=2007051411 M-BMor 07:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Too spammy. -Kmaguir1 15:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a poor quality stub, but managing a $3.5bn investment fund looks notable to me. The autrhor needs to expand the article to say more of what the (his?) firm has done and show its natability. Adding external links, even by the dozen fails to do that. WP is an encyclopaedia, not a link farm. Peterkingiron 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but I strongly disagree with the author's statement, "It's existed for all of 5 minutes give it a chance to develop." It saves everyone a lot of time if you develop an article like this on your hard drive, and don't create it on Wikipedia until the text includes enough indicia of notability to survive AfD. No one is picking on you -- people monitor the creation of new articles and routinely nominate them for deletion within minutes if they don't appear to meet our criteria. JamesMLane t c 15:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Your advice about writing an article is not as easy as you think: if you write an article and then copy and past it in, you get accused of copyright violation. If you write and save an introduction, you can find that some interfering admin deletes it before you have a chance to write and save the rest. This can mean that you have spent an hour writing an article and find that the first bit has disappeared while you are doing so, with the result that you loose your work completely. Both these have happeend to me. The answer appears to be to make the article "under construction", which should warn off busybodies. Similarly you can lose your work (unless you are very careful) if you automatically become logged out while working, or if your Internet conection drops. Peterkingiron 22:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The notability is sketchily proved, but if the article is expanded, it is a keeper. Stellatomailing 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Week keep but cleanup - not very likely to be recreated, but is referenced elsewhere. Cleanup that shiznit. (Heck, put it on my talk page and I might get to it myself if it passes AFD) Guroadrunner 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup Per Guroadrunner. It is notable and verifiable. Article style needs work but is not unsalvagable. The fact that it is "too spammy" is reason to keep and cleanup, not take the lazy road and delete. —Gaff ταλκ 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Needs clean-up and expansion. Bradybd 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
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.