Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lending Works

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lending Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Exclusively promotional article for questionably notable business sourced mainly to primary, listings, PR rehashes and routine announcements. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that present to a broader audience. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - has references from Guardian, Crowd Insiders and Tech Crunch. I've toned down the promotional aspect. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - some of the references lie on the edge of long mentions/significant coverage, but others are full articles, including in significant references. While issues with OR remain in some, there is more than sufficient notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability. Not one of the references passes the criteria for establishing notability. The TechCrunch article is based on an interview and fails WP:ORGIND. The Guardian reference is a listing of "The Major Peer to Peer Lenders" from 2014 and is also based on information provided by the company, not intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND. The Crowd Insiders reference is based on an interview with the founders, is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an article about a small business that seems to have no major notability. I agree with the nominator on this one. Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per HighKing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Corporate puffery. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2018 (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.