Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benzinga


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Benzinga

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article describes a "financial news" site of extremely marginal notability in typically sugarcoated promospeak. Going through the "references" provided, we find most of them to be self-published material (or simple reposts thereof) or simple passing mentions in this or that publication. The strongest thing this has going for it is probably its Forbes blog, but I'm not sure that alone is sufficient. Overall, the article is written almost entirely in an unencyclopaedic fashion and seems to fail WP:ORG. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This seems to be a scraper/aggregation web site of no particular notability. --John Nagle (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Several of the references are either posts by Benzinga or insignificant. Google News provided several links to benzinga.com. One of the third-party sources is this promotional press release (but then again, aren't nearly all press releases promotional?). There was also another small mention here. There is little significant content and coverage about the company itself. SwisterTwister   talk  02:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficient sources to establish notability. Cannot meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:12, 7 October 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.