Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Investopedia

Investopedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Does not meet notability criteria for web sites. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Sole source for this article is the site itself and content "cut/pasted" from "User:Investopedia"[1] and a press release from the company that just acquired the site. Since this page is essentially advertising, speedy deletion may be appropriate.Mantanmoreland 12:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep While not the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, it has been cited as a source for at least five well-known publications, as well as the Motley Fool--Ispy1981 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you provide links please? They could be used in the article. --Android Mouse 18:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, unless cites can be added. Bearian 16:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per my nom. This article is an advertisement. I should have nommed for speedy deletion, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Note that I corrected error in my nomination: article was copied from user page of "User:Investopedia." --Mantanmoreland 17:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have nominated for speedy deletion. I noticed that another article nominated for deletion was subsequently nominated for speedy deletion, so I suppose that is OK.--Mantanmoreland 18:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
it is permissible to nominate for speedy if an article meets the criteria for speedy. This was speedied as spam, but I do not think it is incontestably advertising-like or non-notable as required for speedy, so I removed the tag. The AfD should continue. DGG (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as a Forbes product it is quite possibly notable, if sources can be provided. DGG (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Forbes. Article has been edited extensively since it was created and multiple sources for its notability have not been provided. --Samiharris 20:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of "significant coverage by independent sources". I dont believe that notability is inherited Corpx 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no independent verifiable sources. Bigdaddy1981 07:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep being a Forbes website is a definite claim to notability. I would although like to see some other references provided. --Android Mouse 18:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There are no references to provide. --Mantanmoreland 02:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I just added one. I also note that at least one university economics course uses one of its white papers as required reading at UCSB. Looking beyond the first page of hits at Google is better than bald assertions that there are no references. DGG (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You replaced a press release announcing the Forbes Media acquisition with a one-paragraph rewrite of the press release in "econtentmag.com." I don't think that does anything to satisfy the WP:WEB notability requirement for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Ditto for an Investopedia essay being assigned reading in a university course. As I understand WP:WEB, there needs to be far more media coverage than has been located since article was created in May 2006.--Mantanmoreland 13:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the persons favoring retention of this article agree that its notability relates to its acquisition by Forbes Media, why not merge this article with Forbes? I am changing my "vote" accordingly.--Samiharris 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
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.