Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMoney Advisor


 * 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 Let's talk about it! 10:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

EMoney Advisor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It appears that the subject is non-notable due to WP:AUD. "Well," you might argue, "we should merge this article into the article about one of the subject's parent companies."

No.

This would be most unwise, for one major reason.

The article fails WP:NOTFORPROMOTION; so it should be deleted, not merged.

It reads like a puff piece created by a paid editor. It's full of marketing speak.

It says that, by 2004, the company had more than $5M in revenues and more than 2,200 clients. By 2007, over 20K advisors used the company's software, with more than $110B of assets "running through the system". (What does "running through" even mean?) All italics are mine. In fact, it appears that there are eight numbers and figures in the article in all, and that six of them include a modifier such as "more than" or "over". Perhaps, in a past career, the article's author was an ad copywriter.

The article says that the subject was named one of the "top" companies to work for in Pennsylvania, but I doubt that the source (Best Companies Group) is a reliable source.

Delete per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. Perhaps someone else less biased will recreate the article from scratch later.

[Edit: Jeremy has kindly removed all the blatant promotional language. I still fear that Jeremy may have carefully chosen to include only positive information, and to omit all negative information, when writing the article. But I have no evidence to support my fear. And so I have changed my mind. We should not delete the article. We should either keep or merge it &mdash; whatever the community decides is wisest.]

[Edit: DGG has now chimed in below, and is wiser in these matters than I am. Plus, it still appears that the article fails WP:AUD. Please delete per DGG.]

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I believe WP:GNG applies. The article was written because the software is used commonly among financial traders, not due to any COI. However, as it appears there are strong feelings about this article, I will not officially vote and let the community decide for itself whether the page should be deleted. Jeremy112233 (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. A small company that has now become a minute part of a much larger one. I do not agree the product has been shown to be important--it is used by many firms, but in how significant a role? Very trivial products can be used widely too, but it doesn't make them notable . The apparently impressive financial figures given are not for the firm, but the total financial strength of all the purchasing companies put together, which is trading on borrowed notability in a wholly promotional manner.  The entire thing should be deleted,and a sentence put in the article about the main company, with a redirect. Keeping promotional material in the history is ill-advised, and we should stop doing it.  DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 16 March 2014 (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.