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. The two points to consider here are notability and advertising. The company may well be notable, but none of the sources provided suggest that. Most of them are primary sources or press releases, and the two sources that aren't are either a trivial mention or a profile of a person, not the company. The article appears to exist for the purpose of publicity. If anyone wants to re-create it from scratch using significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it would probably be a keeper. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Loans (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)

Pure advertising. A list of locations belongs on their website, not a WP article, and there is essentially no other content. The sourcesare either themselves, or press releases, or routine notices. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they are an important part of the loan market in the UK. They have featured in The Independent and Daily Record (Scotland) I'm sure they will have featured elsewhere. I'm happy to remove the branches DGG and will do after posting this. My aim with that was to show that they aren't just an Internet based loan company that has popped up, they are actually an active retail company within the UK in a number of major cities. LessThanEvil (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you prepared to write the article based on the third source documentation in those articles? I'm concerned that the existing article omitted all the negative material.Doing that is the worst possible form of promotionalism and a violation of our core principle of NPOV DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • LessThanEvil has now been blocked as a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimeQueen32. January (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks the required depth of coverage. I can't find the feature in the Daily Record referred to above (I checked online and in NewsBank), but that's a tabloid so not a particularly good source anyway. The Independent article is quite good, but not enough on its own. Everything else available seems to be press releases or passing mentions. January (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but prune of location list. This is a retail lender charging high rates of interest, presumably only attractive to high risk borrowers. If I remember right, it has advertised on the TV, so that it is useful to have some kind of objective article on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

would you advocate that as a general rule, that we include articles for whatever is advertised on TV? DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 1 March 2014 (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.