Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Finance

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Finance. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Finance|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Finance.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Finance/archive

Sunarso

Sunarso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage or importance on the subject to have an article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Investment Advisors

Independent Investment Advisors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet

User is likely COI, created a similar article in draftspace at Draft:Independent Investment Advisors which was rejected three times before they ultimately created a mainspace article directly by moving from userspace. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and Oregon. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ashby

Chris Ashby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Law, and Politics. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no claim to notability. TJRC (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails
  WP:GNG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:MILL, and my own standards for lawyers. Yes he's been mentioned in two news articles, but that's not significant coverage. Many, perhaps thousands, of lawyers are involved in politics. He doesn't pass my standards for lawyers by a stretch. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Jo Lambert

Jo Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Australia, and New York. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, she is a COO and has significant news coverage, as well as in-depth coverage (see citations for
  WP:NBIO. Because she has a commonly used name, some of the news coverage for Lambert is hard to find. I added new citations since the AfD listing. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The citations you have added are a classic example of a

  focus on a few excellent sources

  .

  • Source 1 (Fortune) is an interview with Lambert that is too brief to constitute significant coverage and does not provide independent analysis of Lambert beyond her interview responses.
  • Source 2 (NPR) is an obvious PR piece – if we dig a little deeper we find Lambert was elected to the NPR board, making this source non-independent and an obvious non-starter.
  • Sources 3–8 and 10 are about various things Lambert's employers did. None of them provide significant coverage of Lambert herself, but rather mention her only in passing. Again, these obviously constitute a notability bomb.
  • Sources 9 and 13 are profiles of Lambert for a conference she spoke at. These are obviously not independent sources.
  • Source 11 is a press release, obviously not independent.
  • The bulk of Source 12 (Tearsheet) is paywalled. I'm unfamiliar with Tearsheet, but looking at their About Us page brought me to this page explaining their services, where they describe their purpose as [helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readers and exhort prospective customers to let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.

  – Teratix ₵ 07:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Lambert does share her name with others but it is easy to account for this by using more precise search terms or skipping over sources that obviously don't refer to Lambert the executive. – Teratix ₵ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is not an interview, and source 2 has no date (also I don’t think source 2 is PR, because I would expect PR would mention her current employer, or her status at the NPR board for example). Source 12 is not paywalled for me, it has biographical details (and not an interview) but I was also not familiar with the site, and perhaps it is questionable like you say. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Fortune: Honestly, it doesn't really matter what we call it – the point is it contains very little substantive coverage of Lambert, and what little there is has clearly drawn on interview responses from Lambert or just directly quotes her. Bottom line: it's not a source that provides the significant coverage needed to contribute to notability.

On NPR: a profile that appears on the website of a company for which she serves as a board member, that opens by gushing Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executive and calls her a transformational leader with a proven track record – you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? – Teratix ₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Tearsheet article on Internet Archive. I also added it to the citation. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shibata Takumi (fund manager)

Shibata Takumi (fund manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Basic business person resume/CV. Of the 4 references, 3 are brief appointment announcements and one is a brief database type description. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Japan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep I wonder if North8000 did a
  sources in Japanese. We're talking about the former CEO of a company with $250 billion under management. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] (and yes, I realize some of these are short but keep in mind Japanese is a much more concise language. These results are just from the first couple of pages of results in a quick Google search btw. DCsansei (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How about picking/pointing out 2 that cover him in depth. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund

Bandhan Mutual Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Trivial coverage according to

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Credibly (company)

Credibly (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I guess this has been recreated—wasn't quite sure what had happened here initially, but as I was planning on commenting on the previous AFD I guess I may as well nom it. I couldn't find anything useful in my own search. Editing history of the creator also seems a bit odd but I'm not too familiar with that kind of thing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Michigan. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my rationale at the previous AFD. The only indepth sourcing is not from
  reliable sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Credit Union

Christian Credit Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Sources are just a couple routine local notices plus coverage on a couple criminal charges against associated individuals North8000 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, North8000. I think the Christian Credit Union in Edmonton probably meets notability; however this is not well demonstrated in the current stub. I think the bank will meet notability because of its strong cultural connection to Edmonton's Dutch community. It is where the vast majority of Edmonton's Dutch community has banked for almost 75 years and the bank has hosted and sponsored a range of cultural events in the city. I am happy to continue working on it in Mainspace, or someone can move it back to draftspace where I will attempt to demonstrate this. Tracklan2 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tracklan2: Cool. From a Wikip[edia standpoint that requires finding and including an independent (of the credit union) source or 2 that covers them in depth. For example, a Dutch community source that does that. If you could do that in 1-2 weeks we could settle this right here as a "keep". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just expanded the article a bit and added a handful of citations Tracklan2 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - that's a lot of references over decades - including National - here's a better link for the National Post article, for Wikipedia editors. Nfitz (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Am I allowed to vote keep even though I'm the one who wrote it? The Christian Courier articles from 2002 are independent of the bank and discuss its history and mission/vision in depth. I agree with Nfitz that the national coverage and ongoing coverage across decades and publications is significant. Tracklan2 (talk) 4:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed. (although we don't call it a vote  :-) ) North8000 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of the nominator on whether recent additions assuage their concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]