Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Marquette

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Madison Marquette}})

Copy, paste of the draft Draft:Madison Marquette. Article gives undue weight to certain areas and reads like an advertisement. Recommending this article be deleted. Although the draft may be published after the problems are sorted out by the author. JAaron95 (Talk) 15:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 (Talk) 15:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 (Talk) 15:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 (Talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Deleessentially an advertisement. The only thing resembling a claim of notability is from an unreliable trade publication--and in any rate "one of the most..." is typical nonspecific PR talk. The references are eith mere notices or press releases -- the one from Foster Pepper, for example, is a press release by the firm's own attorney in the relevant transaction. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep Although BizJournals isn't great, there are two substantial pieces on them[http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/1999/01/18/story2.html?page=all][http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/print-edition/2015/05/01/deal-of-the-year-the-wharf.html] I see no reason to label trade journals - like Chain Store Age as unreliable - the trade press is the most likely to cover any given B2B company. If we relied only on the mainstream press, we'd only be able to cover consumer companies and controversies. I also see that the nom said at AFC that it was likely notable and they have 200+ employees, which is still small, but most companies start gaining some marginal notability around 100-150. Reports of the entire article being promotional due to a single sentence is greatly exaggerated. Most of it looks fine. CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• This looks to me to meet WP:CORP, although I would have preferred for it not to have been created by an SPA, which always smacks of COI. However, the references are there, so I'll say keep. LaMona (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2015 (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.