Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneyfacts.co.uk

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 June 29.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 and salt. This is a difficult decision but I'm going to have to make a decision one way or the other to end this recreation/renomination cycle. I will delete it because:

The article appears to be self-promotion, raising spam/conflict of interest problems.
Most of the Google News references are from non-notable websites such as easier.com
The Google News articles that are from credible news sources are not actually about the website.

I refer people to Deletion Review if they wish to pursue this further. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyfacts.co.uk

Nominated for speedy and declined. Non-notable company/website, spammy, no reliable sources. Re-creation of a previous article that has been deleted as spam THREE times (albeit with a different title). ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC). Also, WP:SALT to prevent re-creation. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The primary source is fine, the second Alexa source neither confirms nor contradicts the article and is useless, and the third Wikia source reads like an advert. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~Weak Keep The article appeared to be blatant advertising to me because of its lack of reliable 3rd party sourcing and the only references appeared to be external links to help sell the subject. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-delete as {{db-web}}. DMacks (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: I did nominate for speedy but it was declined (on rather thin grounds, IMHO, but that's not relevant). – ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable web content per DMacks. This article is definitely spam. Cunard (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I wouldn't quite call it blatant spam, but it's definitely non-notable and the fact that it keeps coming back strongly suggests a WP:COI issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - does not claim to be notable. also spam. --T-rex 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I also suggest SALT-ing the title as there is no doubt it will be recreated a fourth time if this AfD succeeds. Darrenhusted (talk)

Delete - neither the business nor the website notability criteria are met. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The other editors said it best...and first. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Usually I respond to unresearched deletion nominations by adding the sources I can find to the article, but for this one I just don't have the time - it would take far to long to add references to all of the 1100 sources found by Google News, so I would urge the ten people above who didn't bother to even do any basic research before joining in the feeding frenzy to add one each. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep a major company, there's already one good though short RS 3rd party article in the external links ~~The Observer,~~ and what Phil found is pertinent. (It was I who declined the speedy on what someone seems to think are the thin grounds that the article was even if looked at by someone who didnt check importance not purely promotional--which is the requirement for speedy G11).DGG (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed the link: it is [1] DGG (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that some of the people "voting" delete above did do research. Saying that we didn't bother looking at this is ridiculous. This article neither asserts notability nor did it make any attempt at reliable 3rd party sourcing (both of which articles which aren't simply advertising should have from the beginning). Also, and somewhat separately why does "Moneyfacts" redirect to Ethical banking? Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aren't "has over half a million users" and "supply the majority of the national and regional press and over 100 Financial websites with Best Buy charts" assertions of notability? And wouldn't the normal research done by anyone nominating or commenting at AfD include a news archive search? I've no idea why Moneyfacts redirected to Ethical banking - you'd better ask User:Mac who did it if you really want to know. I've changed the redirect to go to the page under discussion here. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I grant you the users thing and the other thing says popular. I was under the impression notability was about more than just that though. The news stuff I saw seemed to be moneyfacts commenting on other people and not the other way around (which is also something I thought was the requirement). I'm willing to change to a weak keep if I was wrong on these though. It still doesn't justify your generalisation of people though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the Google News hits are reporting quotations from Moneyfacts, but many also are major media sources referring to Moneyfacts as one of the best places to go for information on the UK consumer finance market. The first 50 of those hits include such statements from the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent and The Times - the five major non-tabloid general news sources in the UK. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. More so than usual. DGG's link to The Observer seems to be about vintage guitars, and I'm not at all sure how it confers notability on this business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, see above.DGG (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Phil Bridger and DGG have shown this website clearly meets the notability guidelines with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. RMHED (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article could sure as heck use some cleanup and improvement, but notability has been established for the subject. Just because it isn't pretty doesn't mean it doesn't belong.--Finalnight (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2008 (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.