- 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. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Swanest[edit]
- Swanest (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)
The refs are press releases, or mere notices or official announcements. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as by far nothing at all for any applicable notability, newly started and only localized with only expected coverage shows nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove deletion request I dont understand why this page is still being challenged, it has already gone through this twice before. We came to agreement that its coverage Is notable, its is not infact just localised (see ETF.com) what else needs to be convincing? These are all personal views, the page abides by Wikipedia guidelines and is exactly equivalent (and less bias) of MoneyFarm. Please explain if you wish to delete this why MoneyFarm or similar pages are okay as this is hit and miss moderation. (Marcusw572 (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- 'Comment You are right about one thing MoneyFarm is at least equally inappropriate as a WP article. I've just listed it for deletion.We have unfortunately a good deal of promotional junk in Wikipedia, and the first thing to do is to not add to it. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG im not sure what your goal is here but you appear to be unravelling wikipedia unnecessarily, I believe you are approaching the moderation of pieces with the wrong point of view, the Swanest page is a factual non promotional summary of information that is not easily obtainable on the internet, it serves purpose as a notable informative page. I believe you are waging a fruitless assult targetting all 'non suitable / junk pages' what is junk to one person is totally helpful and relevant to another... I believe this needs more input from other members on wikipedia. (Marcusw572 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete @Marcusw572 there is a certain track record and degree of economic/social impact that a company needs to have had in order to merit an article in Wikipedia. Swanest may well be on its way to building such an impact, but from the provided references in the article, it does not seem to be there quite yet. I suggest trying to publish again once the company is more established and has made a stronger economic/social impact. Star Islington (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep @Star Islington please refer to the parallel conversation here as this view is not shared by all on wikipedia. Please also note the criteria from WP:COMPANY, this is a notable entity and has place on Wikipedia. I can understand where your coming from, but wikipedia serves purpose by containing useful information that is hard to find from other sparse locations. There are countless pages across wikipedia that do not meet the aforementioned criteria, at what point does an entity become 'established' or having a suitably 'strong economic/social impact' there is a huge amount of wikipedia that serves as informative references. Robo advisory is a very new area emerging, having any information on the subject and who is involved is very helpful start point as to expand from, i see the net result of removing this pages as negative overall. Having this page does not take away from wikipedia, if anything it is indirectly helping build a foundation for this new emerging area (by including those who are leading it!) (Marcusw572 (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
@Ritchie333 please keep your edits and comments neutral, regardless of whether someone else did or didnt do as you said in the past does not mean you should continue to fruitlessly interfere - personal opinions have no place on Wikipedia . Thank you for adding the negative press piece - I was unaware that it was that ill received (i saw very little press on the matter). I have readded the information which is infact not puffery or a non negative point of view. Its important that the description is done with a non promotional manner. (Marcusw572 (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete I see nothing here to demonstrate notability. References do not show significant independent coverage. Indistinguishable from tens of thousands of other companies. WP is not a business directory. This article is promotional. MB (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non notable start-up company. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Please can you refer to the parallel discussion on MoneyFarm this exact same discussion has taken place and been rendered as a keep as the company as in this case was deemed notable and non promotional - neutral tone in article. I am struggling to understand how the sources in this case can be deemed non notable - simply because some of the largest coverage they have is from Belgian press...? (109.152.202.6 (talk) 06:37, 20 June 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.