Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citywire


 * 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   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Citywire

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article lacks reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha Quadrant   talk    23:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete per above, Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't find evidence of notability, other than the one secondary citation in the article, which is a brief newspaper mention of Reuters buying a stake, half given over to quotes from the company (non-independent). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (edit conflict) I've added a 3rd party reference to the article (from the point when Reuters bought a stake in this company). They play a significant role in financial journalism / analysis in the UK. Given their field, a Google News search obviously brings up a lot of news stories published on their own site, but excluding their own domain shows significant reporting of their analytics carried into other journals. AllyD (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Further link added from Independent article ("...has made a name for itself with a fund performance analysis method...") See also this Daily Telegraph article: "... has made a name for itself by exposing the secret share deals of some of Britain's best-known investors". And a BBC News search shows a significant number of times Citywire staff are providing analytic views there. Also this (less notable) source describing its "pre-eminent position in the market for its unique combination of journalistic experience, regulated financial advice and proprietary data". AllyD (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Topic notability is established per these reliable sources, , . Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Guardian and The Telegraph both cover a single event back in 2001, where Reuters (a notable company) bought 25% of Citywire. The Independent source is only a passing mention. It uses a quote from the Citywire managing director, the article isn't about Citywire. There isn't a significant amount of coverage to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    15:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As I pointed out last time this came up, the Financial Times use Citywire as a source; that's as much of a notable third-party reference as I can think of. --CetreCetoen (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I find the examples given by several editors above persuasive that this service is regarded by the relevant segment of the world as being notable, and that therefore we should do so also.   DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 7 October 2011 (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.