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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

London Mint Office (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)

The London Mint Office is a predatory mail-order company selling collectible coins. The London Mint Office confuses customers by connoting some official status. Whereas the Royal Mint is the government mint of the UK, the London Mint Office is a private company established in 2006. The London Mint Office is not a notable company, and by having an article there is a risk that Wikipedia is lending credibility to their questionable business.

I have not been able to find reliable sources clearly documenting the questionable nature of the business. However, this is more likely a reflection on their non-notability than the probity of the business. A quick Google search will return many online forum discussions describing the London Mint Office as a scam or a misleading business.

Reads like an advertisement. The article is written in a way that reads like an advertisement. It contains various platitudes about the business, including a list of its various marketing stunts under the ‘promotional events’ section.

Conflict of interest editing. The article reeks of COI editing. The promotional-sounding article about the London Mint Office is the only contribution made to Wikipedia by User:Johnnyp176. Various accounts subsequently making substantial contributions to the article, including User:JPRobin and User:JustinPRob, were blocked for sockpuppetry.

Not noteworthy. Per WP:CORP, a company is notable if it “has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject”. Although 24 sources have been cited, none of them can be described as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources which have been cited include the company’s own website, PR newswire sites, the website of its parent company, the website of their PR agency, and various fleeting and incidental references in newspapers, some of which have obviously confused the London Mint Office for the Royal Mint.

‪雞蛋仔 eggwaffles (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: Per most of the nom, although "having an article there is a risk that Wikipedia is lending credibility to their questionable business" is not a valid reason. Wikipedia has thousands of articles on businesses about which questions have been raised. As long as the business is notable, that is not an issue. Also the allegations that it may be a scam or misleading does not preclude an article as long as those allegations are reflected. Attempts should be made to address those issues (and the advert-like nature) before deleting. But it does fail WP:CORP IMO, hence my weak delete. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I will confess that I initially found it slightly odd that this article was nominated and that the emerging consensus seemed to be to delete. Every few months I get bombarded by their ads so I assumed they were notable. I thus decided to make a thorough source assessment table (see below) to look into whether they were actually notable. The inescapable conclusion is that they are not. As can be seen from the table below, 24 sources were analysed in depth of which 21 were still accessible (3 had WP:ROTTED away). The vast majority fell at the hurdles of independence or reliability. Some were particularly egregious like press releases and financial accounts. While I was surprised to conclude that this company fails WP:SIRS, there seems to be no single independent, reliable and significance coverage out there, let alone multiple such sources. There were two sources that were closer(er) to meeting the guidelines and which merit a particular mention here to head off any possible argument. These were the Times Colonist Article [1] and The BBC news article [2]. While these sources could arguably be independent and reliable, their coverage is woefully trivial. They merely mention LMO in passing and cannot be said to represent significant coverage. I also searched for more sources and could not find any. Please let me know (by pinging me) if more sources appear of if you disagree with the assessment I made. For clarity, per Lard Almighty I also disagree with the statement that just by LMO having an article there is a risk that Wikipedia is lending credibility to their questionable business such that we should delete it. What matters is meeting WP:SIRS and this fails it.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Smaller Huset Grp.	It's LMO's parent company	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
Data and Marketing Association	The DMA seems to be a paid register of companies such that the information is obtained from LMO	It's a paid directory	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
Business Wire	It's a press release	It's a press release	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
London Mint Office	LMO's support page is not independent of itself	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
London Mint Office	LMO's support page is not independent of itself	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
London Mint Office	LMO's terms and conditions are not independent of each other	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
LMO Financial Statement	LMO's own accounts are not independent of it	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Irrelevant given it's non-independent	✘ No
Times Colonist	There appears to be no connection to LMO	Seems to be a local/regional newspaper and the article does not appear to rely solely on quotes and it is written by a journalist with a byline.	The article is mainly about a local resident who was commissioned by the LMO to design a coin. While it does mention other coins by LMO, its coverage of them is arguably no more than trivial.	✘ No
The Olive Press	? Link has WP:ROTTED away	? Link has WP:ROTTED away	? Link has WP:ROTTED away	? Unknown
World Money Fair	? Link has WP:ROTED away	? Link has WP:ROTED away	? Link has WP:ROTED away	? Unknown
Huffington Post UK	~ The parts of the article relevant to LMO are mainly quotes from an executive	~ While per WP:HUFFPO it is generally considered reliable for non-political topics, the large reliance on quotes in this case for the relevant material brings that into question.	The article barely mentions LMO and then only in the context of a tour organised by its parent company.	✘ No
Daily Telegraph	~ The parts of the article relevant to LMO are mainly quotes from an executive and the mention that the LMO is giving away replicas at the bottom of the article also raise suspicions.	~ While the Daily Telegraph is usually WP:GREL, the large reliance on quotes in this case for the relevant material brings that into question.	The article barely mentions LMO and then only in the context of a tour.	✘ No
SE-1 News	There seems to be no connection with LMO	? The website is a local news outlet but this article has no byline but instead refers to the editorial team which makes judging the reliability difficult.	It gives LMO a passing mention.	✘ No
Loud Mouth PR	No apparent connection with LMO	It is a PR company	Irrelevant because it is unreliable but in any case it fails to mention LMO	✘ No
Ascot, Windsor and Eton Express	~ The parts of the article relevant to LMO are mainly quotes from an executive.	~ The article is in a local newspaper with a byline, but the relevant information relies on quotes.	The article has no non-trivial mentions of LMO.	✘ No
MCM Comic Con	? Link has WP:ROTTED away completely.	? Link has WP:ROTTED away completely.	? Link has WP:ROTTED away completely.	? Unknown
BBC London	~ The parts of the video that mention LMO are primary material.	~ While BBC is WP:GREL, the LMO-relevatn material is primary.	LMO is only given trivial coverage in gifting the couple a coin.	✘ No
iTV Wales	ITV is reputable British newscaster. Note that the video is posted at LMO's own channel.	? Given that the video has been reposted to LMO's own channel it is impossible to assess its reliability.	Nonetheless, it gives LMO merely trivial coverage, concentrating instead on the damnbusters	✘ No
BBC News	No connection to LMO.	BBC is WP:GREL	While the headline seems to lead with LMO's donation, the article concentrates on something else and barely mentions the LMO	✘ No
Sussex World	The article relies solely on quotes.	~ The relevant material are LMO quotes but it is otherwise a local newspaper with bylines.	? Irrelevant because not independent.	✘ No
The Falmouth Packet	The article relies solely on quotes for the relevant material.	~ The relevant material are LMO quotes but it is otherwise a local newspaper with bylines.	? Irrelevant because not independent.	✘ No
UK Fundraising	~ No apparent connection between LMO and the source. However, the relevant LMO material is mostly derived from an ad by them.	~ While it is a trade news site, it is written with a byline and with apparent editorial standards. The material relevant to LMO is from an ad of theirs.	No significant coverage other than their advertising.	✘ No
Daily Telegraph	The article relies solely on quotes for the relevant material.	~ While the Daily Telegraph is usually WP:GREL, the large reliance on quotes in this case for the relevant material brings that into question.	While it is irrelevant due to the lack of independence, the coverage is also trivial	✘ No
Marketing blog	~ Possibly somewhat independent, but relies heavily on quotes	it is a blog and it relies heavily on quotes	? Irrelevant due to independence concerns and lack of reliability	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2022 (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.