Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACF Investment Bank
- 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. ✗plicit 04:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- ACF Investment Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nom per request of IP: My rationale is article fails WP:NCORP. Article was originally nominated for speedy deletion for advertising and its creator was even accused of WP:COI. Its now September and the article still has not been significantly fixed. Can someone please help? 210.6.154.3 UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete clearly fails WP:NCORP at the moment and I could not independently find sources denoting notability. Rkieferbaum (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Variety items from 2020 and 2022 summarise the company's recent deals: [1], [2]. AllyD (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)- As you'll see, the original article is now flagged as "This article relies largely or entirely on a single source". However, if you go back to the first iteration of the article, it contained 55 secondary sources which were subsequently removed - and it was this act that rendered the article to be in contravention of the notability guidelines. It's fair to say (and see) that the original article - despite the section formatting issues, demonstrated the company concerned plays a specific (and well sourced) role in financing within the global media and entertainment industry. That makes it notable. Easypeasydl (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Easypeasydl: besides not being in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelinces (hence adequately removed), the huge list of references merely cited the Bank in passing in the context of other negotiations, thus failiing to qualify as significant coverage. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- As you'll see, the original article is now flagged as "This article relies largely or entirely on a single source". However, if you go back to the first iteration of the article, it contained 55 secondary sources which were subsequently removed - and it was this act that rendered the article to be in contravention of the notability guidelines. It's fair to say (and see) that the original article - despite the section formatting issues, demonstrated the company concerned plays a specific (and well sourced) role in financing within the global media and entertainment industry. That makes it notable. Easypeasydl (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Those reference were junk. No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 04:22, 14 September 2023 (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.