Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Financial Management

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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public Financial Management

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

Apparently non-notable consulting firm. Only refs provided are external links to the company's own website; Google didn't come up with much better. Speedy declined 7 years ago. Ivanvector (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a large company but I don't see much coverage. Gigs (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: amateurish attempt at promotion. Quis separabit? 21:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of references under the name PFM Group. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=ca&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=%22PFM+Group%22&oq=%22PFM+Group%22 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted per potential source availability, per Eastmain's !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Scads of stuff under PFM Group, largest U.S. municipal bond adviser by volume http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-16/bonow-appointed-ceo-of-pfm-group-as-white-named-chairman.html. Vrac (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the generic name was throwing us. It would be nice to find more in depth coverage, but companies that don't particularly seek attention and don't do much controversial don't ever seem to get it. Gigs (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 19 December 2014 (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.