Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabesque Asset 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 Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arabesque Asset Management

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

can't see it meeting WP:CORP. it has a mere 18 employees and existed less than a year. the coverage provided is rather WP:ROUTINE. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The report from Reuters seems acceptable. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are also these from Bloomberg and Yahoo News but that is it. JTdale ^Talk 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources found, and, as I was about to write, this may just be too soon. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 14 July 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, czar ♔ 06:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per sources provided, I agree with Bearian - It does seem somewhat toosoon . –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:42, 20 July 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, czar ♔ 02:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 02:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete The firm is not yet notable--all the sources talk about is the possibility that it mightb e someday. DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of brief, fairly routine mentions in Bloomberg and Reuters (Yahoo is just a repeat of the Reuters bit), and not much more. Coverage too thin to merit an entry here. May achieve notability in time, but right now it's too soon. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unless some one will provide adequate info on the fudns under management being very large indeed, my conclusion is that this is a NN company. Having 18 employees tends to confirm that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 5 August 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.