Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acuity Knowledge Partners

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acuity Knowledge Partners

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The entity was an offshoot division of Moody's Analytics which was not notable enough in the first place itself i.e., fails WP:NCORP. Later, it got acquired by another organization. The entity has a series of names changes due to a series of acquisitions. Besides lacking notability of its own, it also lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found references that are establishing the notability of the company. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. CleanAmbassy (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1st is from the "sites" section of Forbes, fails as pre WP:FORBES. The 2nd is entirely based on an interview with no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND. The 3rd is entirely based on this company announcement, also fails WP:ORGIND. The 4th relies on quotations and information provided by company personnel with no Independent Content, also fails WP:ORGIND. Finally the 5th is entirely based on this Press Release from Moody's and also fails WP:ORGIND. Not a single one of those references meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and User:HighKing. This is just another company with no encyclopedia value. With 2019 advertising revenues between the US and England in the $260 BILLION dollar a year neighborhood there is potentially a good reason to create and fight for the inclusion of such articles. I am not stating I think this is the case here but possible. Wikipedia is neither an advertising nor a directory of companies and businesses platform. The English Wikipedia has become a world encyclopedia so a subject needs to be notable on the world-at-large scheme and not just from a select financial or business news aspect. Esomar states it is The market place for business and uses advertising language like a press release such as "Our strength lies in our approach..." (2nd paragraph) which is clearly company promotional. The Economic Times is a press release of one company acquiring another for an undisclosed sum. I could go on but the results will be similar. Otr500 (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2020 (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.