Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GEROVA Financial Group

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GEROVA Financial Group

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

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The involved OTRS ticket isn't really relevant to the deletion discussion, but if the article is kept, care needs to be taken to keep it balanced and well-sourced. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article appears to be non-notable only because all the references were deleted. They're acquiring Seymour Pierce, a London-based investment bank. [1] [2]. They're listed on the NYSE, although they had a delisting notice a few months back.[3]. The Telegraph (London) has some interesting comments.[4] They also bought Ticonderoga Securities. And last Tuesday, they were the biggest gainer on the NYSE.[5]. Wikipedia policy (WP:LISTED) is that, while companies traded on major exchanges are not automatically notable, good sources usually exist for such companies, and a search for sources should be made before proposing deletion. --John Nagle (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also turns out they only used the name Gerova for a few months. Until February 2010, they were called "Asia Special Situations Acquisition Corp", and now they're changing their name to "Seymour Pierce". So searches for Gerova don't bring up full information. --John Nagle (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep God, figuring notability for companies like this is always tricky. I am usually firmly in the deletionist camp with articles like this...BUT the continued listing on the NYSE, and the Bloomberg article about the acquisition, makes me think (despite my comment to the contrary on the ANI discussion) that this company is trending toward meeting the notability requirements The Eskimo (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a small non-notable company that has signed two conracts with other non-notable companies that have not closed. The article is only here because it was put here by a spammer. Finding a few references does not make it notable. Delete for goodness sake. We can put it back if the company ever does anything notable. Hkferryrider (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seymour Pierce, which Gerova just acquired, is much more notable than Gerova itself, with many references in Google News. Maybe a move would be appropriate. The surviving company is Gerova, but the name of Seymour Pierce will be used. --John Nagle (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)GEROVA Financial Group[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear to meet WP:ORG or generate coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:35, 30 December 2010 (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.