Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADVFN

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADVFN

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:CORP. This was originally started as an extremely WP:PROMO article by a single-purpose account (see this AFD for more details). It has subsequently been edited to eliminate the WP:PROMO material, however this leaves the only references to reliable sources being references to the defamation case which ADVFN was involved in.

Per WP:ILLCON: "It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct shall not be used to establish an organization's notability per this guideline." As such this fails WP:CORP and is not notable.

My WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing else but coverage in blogs and other such unreliable sources related to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, or short instances of coverage that do not meet WP:SIGCOV. ADVFN would not be notable under WP:CRIME either as defamation of this kind is run-of-the-mill and anyway the subject would be the defamation case, not the company. Whilst the company is listed, it is only listed on the Alternative Investment Market, a minor market in which companies need only be nominated by a nominated adviser (of which there as dozens) to be listed and which contains more than 1000 companies, and as such fails WP:LISTED as it is not a major stock-exchange comparable to the main NYSE. FOARP (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised to say I'm Leaning delete - the cites are skimpy as is, and I really can't find any substantial information on them in a quick WP:BEFORE (searching the name on Google News) - it's all press releases and passing mentions. I'm willing to be convinced, but it'd have to be more convincing than what I see - David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺19:04, 16 December 2019 (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.