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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vistra Group

[edit]

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

I am unable to find any secondary sources referring to the company. The author of the article appears to be affiliated with the subject's holding company. I decided not to nominate his previous article, Offshore Incorporations Limited Group, when a search through that company's news archives turned up coverage in secondary sources. A search of Vistra's news archive for the past couple years showed only press releases. I would assume that if there was any coverage of the company that I hadn't found through Google searches, the company itself would have linked to the articles on their news page. Wieno (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While one would think this company would be notable based on its size and reach, I also could find no secondary sources for it on Google. A High Beam search turned up several articles which are company press releases. All information I could find about the company therefore came from primary sources. The company's wealth management services are private and presumably they do not want much information to get into the public domain. The company might be notable if secondary sources confirming some facts about the company could be found but under the circumstances, I think it fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2014 (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.