Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP

:{{la|Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raich_Ende_Malter_%26_Co._LLP Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Raich Ende Malter & Co. LLP}})

Promotional article on a non-notable accountancy firm, one of the top twenty such firms in New York, with 240 employees. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by a paid member of staff, who has at least declared the conflict of interest. A draft at AfC was abandoned in favour of moving the article into mainspace without approval. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• I appreciate your letting me know the page is marked for deletion. I'm a pretty new user, and any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. One question: can you please explain what you mean by "non-notable"? Our firm is very well-known in the real estate and high net worth industries, as evidenced by the various rankings in the audited benchmark surveys I cited in the footnotes. I'm also confused by the "promotional" aspect. In what ways is this information promotional? I want to correct it, if possible. The page was created using the Grassi & Co. page as a template (a much smaller competitor). Thank you for your help. Amyfrushour1971 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• {{ping|Amyfrushour1971}} Wikipedia's concept of notability is a bit unique. Generally, a topic is only considered notable (worthy of inclusion) if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. For more information, see WP:GNG. A subject may also be notable if it meets certain topic-specific guidelines; in this case those would be WP:COMPANY. To demonstrate notability, you need to show examples of significant coverage, or explain how the subject meets the topic-specific guideline. For example, a profile of the company in the New York Times or Forbes would be persuasive, since it would be significant, and the sources are independent of the company, and reliable; a short entry on a list, or a press release wouldn't be, since they're either not significant or independent. Pburka (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Just to clarify some of that - two references are required and those references must be "intellectually independent". That excludes articles that are based on company announcements, interviews with company staff, nothing from affiliated sources. Just be aware that more often than not, "profiles" in the NYT or Forbes fall foul of being "intellectually independent". HighKing⁺⁺ 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with nom, no indications of notability, no further references forthcoming since the AfD. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:NCORP. There are many business that are "well-known" by individuals but without reliable sources they do not meet the threshold for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Ifnord (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Typical corporation listing (really, spam...). Drmies (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2018 (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.