Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneyfacts.co.uk

Moneyfacts.co.uk

Moneyfacts.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• Speedy Delete The article is blatant advertising with no actual references and only external links to help sell the subject. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy-delete as {{db-web}}. DMacks (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• Speedy delete as non-notable web content per DMacks. This article is definitely spam. Cunard (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• delete - does not claim to be notable. also spam. --T-rex 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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)
• Delete The other editors said it best...and first. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• 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)
• Strong Keep a major company, there's already one good 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).