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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seilern Investment Management[edit]

Seilern Investment Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Peacocky promo piece on a non-notable company. The sources cited are the company's own website, a couple of interviews of the founder, and one article (FondsProfessionell.at) which looks like it might contribute towards notability, but isn't alone enough to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Search finds nothing beyond the usual social media, company directories, standard business reporting / press release regurgitations, and again some interviews of the founder. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - refers to a "well-known" fund that gets less than 50 Google hits when searched. The company itself doesn't do much better. There are some media mentions, but only a couple (some paywalled). I don't think there's enough for a keep here. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Assets under management > 2 billion. it has Relevance criteria in reference to over two million securities transactions"; The company beates its bechmarks in every fund category which shows its relevance. Mor than 90 percent of companies are not beating its benchmarks...Lucky-se7en (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The amount of AUM or performance against benchmarks are not notability criteria. If you can find sources to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT to support your article, please feel free to add them. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Lacking notability based on current citations. Gusfriend (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article describing the proposition of an investment management firm, without indication of encyclopaedic notability. Some references are about the firm's founder and his book, others are announcement-based. Clearly a company going about its business, but I am not seeing the depth of coverage about the firm itself needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2022 (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.