Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mutual Fund Store

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. One two three... 03:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mutual Fund Store

Seems to be written like an advertisement. No articles link to it, and it doesn't seem worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. It is however, not suitable of CSD. Neu_tralle 11:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked Adam Bold to this article. I believe this article is objective and notable for Wikipedia. Several secondary references have been included in the article. It is written with factual information. Follows formatting used in other articles on Wiki such as Edward Jones Investments and A.G. Edwards.

This is a major, national financial services company. How could Wikipedia not have an article on it? The Mutual Fund Store has 70 locations across the U.S. and is regularly referenced on Forbes.com, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Kiplingers, CNBC, and Bloomberg News. Nemiccolo (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix advertising and POV issues if it's notable, otherwise delete. I can't claim expertise in notability of mutual fund companies. Hairhorn (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I edited this article so it wouldn't be an advertisement and I fixed the POV issue. Should now be good.Nemiccolo (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are pretty minor, they still include press-release style statements about the company's "philosophy" and what it believes. Hairhorn (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the POV issues have not been fixed. The Mutual Fund Store can't believe anything, it's not a human being. I am sure that significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources exists but the author of the article can provide them. Drawn Some (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed All references to POV have been deleted. Nemiccolo (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to meet WP:CORP with WP:RS. Drawn Some (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five of the seven references are from credible, secondary sources. This article seems to be notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia.Rooney1113 (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The sources cited might be enough, and Adam Bond appears to be a regular commenter around the WSJ/Forbes universe, but I didn't find anything earth shattering to indicate the company is notable. There's a strong likelihood of more substantial coverage. While it would be ideal for those to be in the article, they don't all have to be in the article for it to be notable. Shadowjams (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The company is the "first nationally branded financial advisory firm for the mass affluent." In other words, for middle America, the largest segment of the US population. This alone makes it notable.Rooney1113 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Who they target does not make it notable. For instance, I have a plan to convince all humans with money to give me some... that's a big group. My plan's not really all that notable though. Shadowjams (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will all due respect, I believe there is quite a difference. Your plan is not an established business with over 20,000 clients and 70 locations. You, as the founder, are not asked to appear on major national television stations nor are you asked for your opinion in highly credible news publications. Your plan is not a successful business model that has been recognized and awarded by respectable organizations. There are no secondary sources of your plan as there are on this business. Let's please look at the facts when deciding the fate of articles and not over-the-top statements.Rooney1113 (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - We're in complete agreement. I was merely responding to your statement "This alone makes it notable." As you note, it's the reliable sources, business model, and notability demonstrated through these things that is in fact notable. (Side note: the mutual fund store didn't appear on TV; it was an executive of the mutual fund store; the notability of the one doesn't prove that of the other).

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.