Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gronstedt Group

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. czar 19:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gronstedt Group

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

Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support. "References" are mostly articles by founder. Should possibly have been an A7, but another author misread the purpose of inherited. reddogsix (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no credible claim to notability. I have the same concerns about the biography of the company's namesake Anders Gronstedt, which was written by the same account and is similarly weighted with primary sources, articles by Mr. Gronstedt. 2601:188:1:AEA0:5DBF:C661:34B1:B7C8 (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY, like so many other pages here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Should possibly have been an A7, but another author misread the purpose of inherited" - are you talking about me? Adam9007 (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly advertising and there are no sensible signs this can actually be accepted, therefore there's nothing to suggest anything close to otherwise better. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added 19 more secondary sources (16 journals and three books) that reference work by the Gronstedt Group, which should address the concerns that the article relies too much on primary resources and doesn’t meet the notability guidelines. I’ve also done substantial rewrites to remove promotional content and added encyclopedic content. ClarkeCaywood (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:REFBOMBing doesn't work. Not a notable company, at least at this point. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable entity. Anup [Talk] 17:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I pruned the number of references and left the most reliable ones, including detailed client case studies reported in books by industry leading professors, published by Stanford Business Books, Pfiffer, and McGraw-Hill, and a case in the Harvard Business Review. This is perhaps the most notable professional service firm in its industry. ClarkeCaywood (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - only one !vote per person. reddogsix (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2016 (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.