Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIVC Partners

:{{la|CIVC Partners}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CIVC_Partners Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|CIVC Partners}})

Written as an advert for an investment firm. Only source is the firm's website. Possible copyvio as well. - ^theWOLFchild 07:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep upon pressing the news button above, I believe that the company might pass a WP:GNG test.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keep perhaps also at best because the listed equity assets seem convincing enough and further coverage may also exist with the former name. Notifying {{U|DGG}} for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. My effective guideline for financial organizations is $1 billion in capital, and they have 1.3. The GNG is useless for this type of organization, both for inclusion and exclusion. Depending on what one calls significant and independent, one can get in this field whatever result form the GNG that one wishes. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.