Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairinvestment.co.uk


 * 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. Even with the large number of SPAs, there was a clear consensus that this article fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Blueboy96 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairinvestment.co.uk

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Advert for not specially noatble company. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Smells like spam from miles away.Helixweb (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete This page is in accordance with pages on companies in the same industry. Online marketing and search engine marketing is an emerging industry and so of interest to the business and acerdemic world a like. Matt edwards 999 (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — User:Matt edwards 999 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Don't Delete Online price comparison is massive in Uk and fairinvestment is one of the big players - other online sites have entries so this page is also of interest. Rachelmason81 (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — User:Rachelmason81 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Do not Delete Don't see why this page should be deleted - there are other similar companies who have pages so why delete this one? Becci25 (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — User:Becci25 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Don't Delete There are various otehr pages about companies that are very similar to this one so I don't see how it's any different. It seems to provide information that could be useful to the consumer. They also seem to give to a lot of charities, so I say let it be. RachaelElizabeth (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — User:RachaelElizabeth (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. Do I detect the faint odor of sockpuppetry here? Klausness (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete.  A quick google search reveals about a bazillion press releases, but no references from any reliable sources. Klausness (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Similarly, I find vast numbers of press releases, but nothing independently notable that warrants the business having its own article here. I strongly advise that all those wishing to comment on this AfD familiarise themselves with Sock puppetry and Canvassing if they haven't done so already. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not Keep and get the odor of dirty socks out with quick and dirty blocks please. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete Let’s begin again… The employees of the company in question feel it is not unreasonable to be considered for entry in Wikipedia, this is based on the fact the company has a unique business model in a young and emerging industry. Currently there are Wikipedia entries for Moneysupermarket, uSwitch, MoneyExpert and reviewcenter.com to name but a few, all of which operate similar business models. There for the argument for inclusion is that the company is a big player in an interesting a researched market, the article is objective and not written as an advert there are other similar companies with pages some of which are considerably smaller than Fair Investment Company and so if Wikipedia wants to provide a true reflection of this market it’s important that Fair Investment Company is included. So far arguments on the other side are “it smells like spam” and something about socks which is ridiculous if not down right arrogant. I'd appreciate a real argument from that side. Matt edwards 999 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrogant? That a bunch of new accounts mysteriously appear just to defend your company?  How about a real argument from you? JuJube (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statement above speaks for itself. Objectivity and creativity (two words I'm sure are important to Wikipedia) would have meant you'd list what you'd like changed to the article but instead it's just a random bunch of meaningless comments about spam etc... The fact three do not deletes came up is not mysterious but is because they were made by three editorial staff who authored the article and therefore have inherent value in it's publication. If one person would lay down an objective counter to what I've said above I'd be happy to answer this. And 'Spam' is not a counter. Matt edwards 999 (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm sorry but bringing multiple people forward from the company to influence the outcome that compromises the forming of consensus of Wikipedians who presumably did not create an account for such a purpose is not only Canvassing, but also presents Conflict of interest concerns if you yourself say they are "employees of the company". The articles you mention as examples are included in Wikipedia because they are supported by independent reliable sources that satisfy the notability critera. It is my opinion that the article doesn't satisfy said criteria. The fact that Fairinvestment is part of this market does not inherently mean it may have an article here. WilliamH (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: So how does our article differ from the other organisations mentioned above? Matt edwards 999 (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that pointing to similar articles is not a valid argument. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It differs because they have secondary reliable sources(WP:RS). For example uSwitch has an article in the Times and also one in the Guardian paper(actually looking again, even those may fail WP:RS). Fairinvestment requires reliable source so that it can meet notability(WP:N), if it can't then it most likely it will be deleted. ChessCreator (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It differs because myself, and other Wikipedians believe it doesn't satisfy the notability criteria. The other articles do so, but because they do, they are irrelevant in terms of this discussion. Similarly, you may wish to read this. WilliamH (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP No evidence provided of verifiable, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A press release on the sites linked fail WP:RS. SPA accounts noted above. DarkAudit (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP.  A search of Google News UK  turns up only 24 unique hits, every single one either a press release or a quote on a web article from the ubiquitous James Caldwell, the outfit's director.  None are articles about the company, as WP:RS requires.  Mr. Edwards is a new editor -- so no reason to bite - but like others, I strongly recommend that he gain familiarity with the relevant Wikipedia policies, so that he can suggest an actual valid policy ground to keep this article.   RGTraynor  14:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. An online services company that does not provide clear indicia of notability.  Reads like a press release: Businesses have the ability to transform deprived communities through the intelligent use of resources. The directors of Fair Investment believe strongly that supporting and empowering entrepreneurship within communities provides a more sustainable wealth creation model. . '' - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do not delete: I am Editorial Manager of Fairinvestment.co.uk and although I understand the arguments being made, I would really like to take this opportunity to argue the case for Fairinvestment.co.uk having a page on Wikipedia. Firstly, on Fairinvestment.co.uk not being a big player in the financial comparison/news arena: The site attracts 66,000 unique visitors a week and is a Hitwise Top 100 website – the news section alone attracts 7,000 readers a week, and news stories on the website are always high in Google news rankings. For example, by typing in 'car insurance' into Google news, a fairinvestment.co.uk story (about Sainsburys car insurance in fact) is number 2 in the rankings, and if you type in the word 'endowment' a fairinvestment.co.uk story is ranked third (although this may well of changed by the time you read this!).

In terms of Fair Investment and James Caldwell only being quoted in our own releases and stories, I am afraid this is just not true. Our research and comment is well respected by journalists, and used frequently in independent news stories: The links below are just a few recent examples:

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/insurance/the-english-patient-and-the-rise-of-pmi-plans-765408.html

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/consumer_affairs/article3290109.ece

http://www.sundayherald.com/business/businessnews/display.var.2174616.0.ten_ways_to_beat_the_credit_crunch.php

http://www.sundayherald.com/business/businessnews/display.var.2174616.0.0.php

http://www.whatmortgage.co.uk/mortgages/105799/55/Insurance_news/Homeowners_urged_to_check_insurance.htm

http://www.ftadviser.com/FTAdviser/Mortgages/News/article/20071101/a24a6ad4-ea2e-11dc-ab39-0015171400aa/First-time-buyers-not-yet-put-off-by-dip-in-property-market.jsp

http://www.naturalchoices.co.uk/Fairtrade-and-ethical-investment-a?id_mot=19

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=ifa2006_articleimport&tempPageName=702502

Rachelmason81 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — User:Rachelmason81 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note Not one of these articles cited were about the subject. Not one. Most didn't even mention the subject in passing. DarkAudit (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Similarly, I must also comment that in not one of those articles was the subject the company itself, only citing from it in various degrees of proportion. Compare this with this. WilliamH (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * General Comment: This from WP:COI, one of the official Wikipedia guidelines: "If ... you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes) ... then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased)." (emphasis in the original)    RGTraynor  18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, nonnotable company, no legitimate independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * delete "a unique business model in a young and emerging industry" is a euphemism for saying they aren't notable yet, but hope some publicity here will help. DGG (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment How many socks voted "Do not Delete" in this AfD debate?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added a citation to The Times which is a journal of record. This plus the verifiable facts that the company exists and has been quoted by the UK press on multiple occasions seems ample to demonstrate notability.  The existence of COI and the tone of the article are not reasons to delete the article but just reasons to tag or edit it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You added a citation that requires a registration to read. Since I don't work for a library, it's probable that my request for a trial subscription would be denied. Since most editors are likely to be in the same situation, this reference cannot be reasonably vetted. DarkAudit (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see reliable sources which states, Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London.... And note that I do not work for a library either. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden's correct that the fact that the link he posted is behind a paywall is irrelevant; the same is still true of the large majority of high quality sources. But it's also available free on the Times' own website here; and Fia more important problem is that it's a mere four sentences which provide no independent analysis, and in fact do little more than confirm that the company exists. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 07:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The citation is adequate for the fact which it supports. The coverage is slight so per WP:ORG,  If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability..  We have other sources coming in (see below) and so notability is established.  Note that notability is not fame or importance.  We merely need to be satisfied that the organisation is worthy of notice. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I've had a chance to read the article in question, it's yet another in a long line of trivial mentions. None of these citations have been 'about the company, but only mentioned in passing as one in a multitude of similar firms. Multiple trivial mentions is still trivial mentions. DarkAudit (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not my understanding of the citation that I provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we imagine not.   RGTraynor  16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of imagination, as you insultingly suggest. The paragraph in the Times is clearly about this company. It is not a major feature article on them but I am not suggesting that it is.  Their article seems to be a magazine piece covering a variety of financial news.  Since the Times considers that the advent of this company was worthy of notice then we should be guided accordingly.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A paragraph? Out of how many in the article as a whole? They may be mentioned, but the article as a whole is clearly not about this company. Not one of the articles that has been presented as evidence has been about the company. It has all been trivial or incidental. DarkAudit (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete given lack of significant independent coverage. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 07:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Citation - article written by Bristol Evening Post http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12729815_ITMRachelmason81 (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.194.128 (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2008 (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.