Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vista Equity Partners (2nd nomination)

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. Geschichte (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Equity 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)

Although this article has 81 references, none meet the criteria for establishing notability of companies as per WP:NCORP as they are almost entirely based on announcements and Press Releases. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies entirely on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's coverage of the firm that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT. The firm has received coverage from:
1. The Wall Street Journal (1, 2, 3, 4, 5; enormous tax fraud case, enormous tax fraud case 2, enormous tax fraud case 3)
2. The Times (1, 2)
3. Reuters (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
4. CNBC (1, 2, 3)
5. The New York Times (1, 2, 3; enormous tax fraud 1, enormous tax fraud 2)
6. The Washington Post (1, 2)
7. Associated Press (tax fraud coverage via USA Today)
8. Forbes (1, 2, 3; tax fraud 1, tax fraud 2, tax fraud 3, tax fraud 4, tax fraud 5)^{[notes 1]}

Notes

^ (The fifth tax fraud-related link also has a contributor as a co-writer, so I'm unsure of how to apply WP:FORBESCON. The remainder are written solely by current or former staff.)

I believe that there are enough sources among those above to easily satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGCRIT. Thus, the company is notable, and the article should be kept in some form. The article requires a bit of cleanup and additions—I'm kinda surprised the tax fraud case isn't mentioned whatsoever—but this isn't a WP:TNT case. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Generally per Mikehawk10, I've added Tax evasion to the article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are promotional concerns with the article in various places, but sources do indicate that the WP:NCORP threshold is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you, Mikehawk10. The article may have had some promotional issues (company articles often do), but it easily meets WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as added references are easily enough for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2021 (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.

[1] (The fifth tax fraud-related link also has a contributor as a co-writer, so I'm unsure of how to apply WP:FORBESCON. The remainder are written solely by current or former staff.)

[notes 1]