A Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 January 22 has vacated the below delete decision; the original discussion remains for historical reference. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Salvio 11:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Investing.com (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)
Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG as lacking significant coverage in independent, third party sources. The references cited are either from the article subject or are limited interest, trade publications. The general thrust of the article is primarily promotional as contravened by WP:PROMO. Geoff | Who, me? 15:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep per above. Apple731a (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Struck !vote from blocked disruption-only account editing here to WP:GAME autoconfirmed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "popular + respected" does not mean notability in the wp sense. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It does seem likely that it's notable, but I haven't seen the sourcing yet (it's hard to filter through the many google hits). A challenge is that it's a very basic domain name, which is why some of the better sources aren't actually about the company or site but about the domain name itself (and the high price attached to it). The best I've found that wasn't just "they opened a new office" or "there's a canadian version now" is probably this Pando article, but it would be reassuring to see more like that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 20:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I see no evidence that this meets either the GNG or pertinent notability criteria for websites. The keep proponents haven't advanced a reason to avoid deletion beyond WP:ITSIMPORTANT. It is not enough to claim that a website is noteworthy; one must have genuine evidence that it is. Ravenswing 03:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- This does not appear to meet the GNG. It's a bit promotional and has been made to look properly sourced, but a closer inspection shows it's much worse than it looks. Reyk YO! 09:30, 27 August 2020 (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.