Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amigo Loans


 * 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. Advertisements on TV are not independent of the company, and so we can't use them as evidence of notability per the general notability guideline. Also, notability requires verifiable evidence. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 00:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Amigo Loans

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT --Hu12 (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agreed, all of the sources I found with Google News were either small mentions or promotional. Unsuprisingly, I found nothing with Google Books. Considering that the company is British, I searched with Google UK but also found nothing significant for a Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister   talk  23:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's poorly sourced and written like an advertisement. There are quite a few like this on Wikipedia, but this doesn't quite make the bar, in spite of the numerous (repetitive) sources. – MrX 02:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The company advertises on prime-time UK TV, I don't believe notability can be an issue when this is the case. They seem to have been recognised and rewarded as an employer, more than a consumer brand, but still appear notable. An argument for editing to neutralise a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.216.105.12 (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Advertising through a television network is not notability. Although the company appears to have achieved several awards, an article consisting solely of awards would be considered as promotional. Aside from awards, articles must contain reliable especially third-party sources to establish notability. SwisterTwister   talk  19:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.