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 keep. Cetainly not a "must have" article, but the sourcing of ownership of large, well-known business such as WebSense is enough to now meet WP:NCORP ( non-admin closure) ES &L 12:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Vista Equity Partners (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Primary source references, no significant secondary sources provided. heather walls ( talk) 23:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 00:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 00:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete if not significantly improved. Per DGG's contesting of my PROD a few weeks ago and my limited research since then, this company may be sufficiently notable, but this article does not show it. Either improve it or if the clock expires first, delete and start over. If the result is delete, I have no objection to incubation, userfication, or something similar provided that the page does not re-enter main-space without some type of peer review (e.g. WP:AFC). davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep It looks like much of the self-sourced promotion is out of the article now. Does need to be beefed up a bit, but this company has been around long enough and done some notable deals already, that it should be able to be rescued. And I think citing press releases as sources would be better than just deleting the content, provided the wording in the article is paraphrased into neutral tone, and there are enough other sources to show notability. Primary sources are not outlawed, just articles that rely on them exclusively. It is a private company, but has acquired several public ones, so citing the SEC filings of those companies and independent articles in trade publications should suffice. Might take some work, but no excuse to destroy the article. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki ( talk) 19:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment A bit more has been added to the article, I hope in a neutral tone with a variety of sources. They appear to be one of the largest private equity companies in the world that specializes in software, with several billion-dollar deals a year. Article still needs more work, but the company sounds notable. W Nowicki ( talk) 19:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Superficially, this looks like a "must have" article for Wikipedia, and it seems adequately sourced. The company is gigantic and influential, so it would be a shame to see it deleted from the record. - CoLocate ( talk) 00:39, 7 November 2013 (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.