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. Of the only two arguments to keep, one is by the WP:SPA who created the article, and the other cites a single source of questionable value. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Netwealth[edit]

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

There is no claim to any notability. Fails WP:CORP. It is a start-up company without reputation or accomplishment. The references also provide no proof of anything notable other than that the company exists. Article created by SPA, likely to promote it. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this article in the Telegraph. There is more than enough here, in the links provided, and elsewhere in the media to write a good article. Bradv 19:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Telegraph article was published before the launch of Netwealth, which shows the article is not discussing anything notable about Netwealth. It was written because Gerard Lyons is notable, but that doesn't mean that this notability is inherited. So it is more like a simple product announcement. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This company was founded by very senior people in this space, in a moment where financial services are being disrupted by tech around the world. That's more than enough to make it relevant. The considerable number of references to the company and its founders/advisers further proves that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.142.138 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to include this article from the Times Newspaper: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-rich-and-the-march-of-the-robots-82k7wlj93, but it is behind a paywall so was not sure if it is allowed...I believe that this article points towards the notability of the company at launchLouisLuscombe (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All we have for notability is pre-launch publicity in the Telegraph. Too soon. Mcewan (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely advertorial, I frankly consider this G11. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no use of sales orientated language in the text, it only states facts from the articles from reputable sources. It does not link back to the Businesses website. It is a purely factual piece based off of articles and information found on the FCA register. LouisLuscombe (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to compare to the pages of two businesses which started at nearly exactly the same time Scalable Capital and Wealthify. There is more notability than the Scalable Capital page due to the Telegraph article and the Times article linked above. In regards to it being advertorial it is entirely factual and backed up by external sources and uses no subjective language, unlike the Wealthify page. I am purely comparing to these businesses which are extremely similar so I can better understand how to write a good wikipedia entry.LouisLuscombe (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional writing is one that says what the subject would like the public to know about it; an encyclopedia article provides what the general public having head of the subject is likely to want to know. There's a difference. This is promotional:it is clearly meant to indicate how good the investment firm is. It's addressed to potential investors. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 6 August 2016 (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.