Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invest.com


 * 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. There was a strong attempt to bring the article up to where it meets Wikipedia standards, but consensus was that it still doesn't. I will userfy this on request, if one of the parties wants to continue trying to improve it. MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Invest.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources given lack in-depth coverage of the activities of the company. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * comment from creator: trused Sources exist within the article.The company is registered under "Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission" as well as an in-depth third party article from a trusted sourced(http://citywire.co.uk/) I agree that improvements could be made to the article. But I do believe the page is notable. Ymd2004 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * [this was on an old version] Delete: I did a complete reference check. Almost all sources are bad: primary or user-generated, often just puffery. (We shouldn't have primary links to the fact they're allowed to operate in the EU, that's a basic presumption of financial service companies, which is why there isn't a third-party RS to this effect.) The article has literally one RS. Mostly this is puffery to inflate apparent notability. Even a couple of the unreliable sources fail verification. No evidence it passes WP:CORP - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as I noticed this one recently, none of it comes close to substantiating actual substance. SwisterTwister   talk  05:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per TOOSOON. Coverage includes: "A new leading start-up robo adviser platform in the UK, invest.com, specialises in once hard-to-access alternative investments..." indicating that the company is not yet notable. I cannot find sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with reasoning of David Gerard. Fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I've removed non relevant text and have added references. The company coverage includes sources from: The Telegraph, CNBC, The Huffingon Post and This is Money. This indicates the company is notable  Ymd2004 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "invest.com first made headlines in 2014 when it paid $5 million for its domain name. invest.com says it charges a 1.5% management fee and 15% of profit but as an opening offer until June 22 no management fee will be charged. ... By the end of 2017, invest.com plans to launch in other countries, including Germany, Italy, Russia, Asia, and the Middle East, as well as launching several new alternative investment products."  The article notes: "Three years after buying the domain name invest.com, Israeli tech investor Moshe Hogeg is launching a “hedge fund for the people” backed by $20 million in investment capital from his Singularteam venture capital fund and other, unnamed investors. Launched in Britain, the new site will offer investors seven alternative investment strategies, which it said are “similar to those employed by quant hedge funds.” Invest.com’s portfolio management service requires a minimum investment of 1,500 pounds ($8,500) for a customized portfolio, with the investor’s risk appetite determined by questions posed by a robo-adviser and trades conducted automatically."  The article notes: "Invest.com, one of the world’s most expensive website names, is relaunching itself as an alternative investment and trading site two years after its $5m sale. An Israeli venture capital firm named Singulariteam took control of the domain name in 2014, and has since brought in additional backers including Renren, the Chinese social network, to invest a total of $20m in the new platform. Ophir Gertner, who ran iForex before moving to help launch Invest.com a year and a half ago, said the site was built to compete with a growing number of robo-advisers now offering lower-cost investment help.   ...  Invest.com is modelling itself on the “two and twenty” fee structure at hedge funds, charging customers a flat 1.5pc plus 15pc of their profits."   The article notes: "The new investment platform defines itself as a ‘hedge fund for the masses.’ Unlike traditional hedge funds that require a large sum of starting capital investment, however, Invest.com investors can start investing with an initial deposit of £500. Similar to hedge funds, the investment platform’s portfolio management is based on seven different investment strategies to try and achieve returns even in a down market. Among other aspects, one can invest in foreign currencies, futures, bonds, stocks, and more. The platform uses algo-trading, or automated trading using algorithms, that enables a quick response to market changes in a constant and dynamic way and based on the personal preferences of each investor. Another emphasis on Invest.com is on the liquidity of the investment, where the investor can withdraw their money at any time. If the investor wishes to manage their own investments, they can do so with an initial deposit as low as £500 and if they want to consult the portfolio management services of Invest.com, they can do so with an initial deposit of at least £1,500." </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Invest.com to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * These are literally all passing mentions with zero contribution to WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not consider paragraphs about the subject to be "passing mentions". Cunard (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More opinions needed on Cunard's sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Wow, this is a mess. I think a little WP:TNT would do the article well. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have rewritten the article. Would you take a look? Cunard (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Still delete Not seeing the CORPDEPTH. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Still delete on rewrite. It's not the puff piece it was, and you've done good work here, but still doesn't have the WP:CORPDEPTH, sorry - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * From WP:CORPDEPTH: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." It is clear based on my rewrite that it is possible "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about [the] organization", so the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The company has received significant coverage internationally from the Israeli publications Globes, Haaretz (TheMarker) and he:Geektime and the UK publication The Daily Telegraph. Cunard (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the article is still advertorial sounding; I'm not changing my vote yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Which parts of the article are "still advertorial sounding"? Please let me know so I can fix it. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This reads like a prospectus:


 * In 2016, Invest.com started an online investment platform it called a "hedge fund for the masses" because whereas hedge funds typically require a massive initial investment, Invest.com required only £500. Clients' investments are liquid in that they can be withdrawn whenever customers wanted. Invest.com's platform allows customers to invest in foreign currencies, futures, bonds, and stocks. It uses algorithmic trading.


 * Customers have the option of either managing their own investments or using Invest.com's managing services. For self-management, the starting investment required is £500. For active management from Invest.com, the starting investment required is £1,500. Invest.com uses a robo-advisor to pose a series of questions to customers to determine customers' risk level and execute trades robotically. It makes investments through the financial instrument contract for difference. It charges clients a flat fee of 1.5% and an additional 20% on all profits earned.

This is the bulk of the article. I'm sure this information can be found on the company's website and an encyclopedia article is not required. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a description of the company's investment product. This is its core business so that is why it is "the bulk of the article". The notability guidelines do not say that "this information can be found on the company's website" means "an encyclopedia article is not required". An encyclopedia article is still useful because it presents the information neutrally and sources the information to independent reliable sources, whereas the company's website presents the information non-neutrally. Cunard (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not find the sources to be particularly independent or in-depth For example, the second link appears to be a reprint of the press release (?) as the same headline appears in multiple websites: "Invest.com Launches Hedge Fund for the People’ With $20m in Backing" (sample link:

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/tech-roundup/1.721513) When I click on one of them, the byline is "Market staff" (i.e. not bylined by an individual journalist). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * TheMarker article doesn't appear to be a press release. It says "TheMarker staff" where TheMarker "is a financial website in Israel, as well as the financial supplement of the daily national newspaper Haaretz". But even if the non-bylined source is disregarded, the articles in Globes, he:Geektime, and The Daily Telegraph should be sufficient to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:N is a guideline while WP:NOT is a policy. The article is still promotional in nature / TOOSOON and should be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am an editor with no conflict of interest with the subject. I rewrote the article. Please explain how "The article is still promotional in nature" so I can address Neutral point of view violations. Cunard (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The section "Online investment platform" still reads like a prospectus, creating an impression that the article exists solely to promote a business and to get people to enroll in the company's financial services. The history section contains information about funding and trivial details such as where the company is registered. All of this information can be found on the company's website, and an encyclopedia entry is not needed.
 * WP:N is a guideline, which states that some subjects may meet the notability requirements but would still not warrant an article. I believe this is such a case. In any case, the WP:COPRDEPTH may not have been met, so it would disqualify the article as well. Hope this clarifies my concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your explaining your concerns about the article. I don't think see anything actionable for me to work on improving the article. Information about the company's product, history, and funding is what the sources discussed and what I expect in an article about a company. WP:N is a guideline, which states that some subjects may meet the notability requirements but would still not warrant an article. I believe this is such a case. – thank you for stating that you agree Invest.com meets Notability even if you don't think there should be an article. In any case, the WP:CORPDEPTH may not have been met, so it would disqualify the article as well. – the Israeli and UK sources from Globes, he:Geektime, and The Daily Telegraph meet WP:CORPDEPTH.  Cunard (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I did not state that the company meets the notability guideline; I believe this assertion comes from editor Cunard, and not myself, and I was explaining that even if there's a belief that the notability guideline is met, an article may not be warranted. I've stated above that the reason for deletion is WP:TOOSOON and that I did not find sufficient RS to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. WP:PROMO is part of WP:NOT and supersedes the notability discussion anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How does the article violate WP:PROMO? Which section of WP:PROMO are you referring to? Here is one section: "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small 'garage' or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid." I believe Invest.com is "written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery" after I rewrote it. Do you disagree? Cunard (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point this is coming across as attempting to filibuster the AFD process - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The article meets CORPDEPTH and doesn't violate PROMO. There is coverage in multiple reliable sources. It has been rewritten by a neutral editor with no COI. -- Green  C  13:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Firstly some of the sources have been misrepresented. There is a difference between the domain Invest.com and the company which currently has control of Invest.com. Sources for one cannot be used for another and this article is about the latter. Secondly, per WP:SPIP, many of the sources are questionable. Geektime is essentially a blog which contains user submitted content. Finance Magnates is similar, anyone can register and submit content and there seems to be a feature to submit news about one's company. The Daily Telegraph references is more about the domain name. References 1 and 2 are essentially routine coverage - the kind where companies send press releases to the newspaper's financial section and it is redressed and reprinted. These cannot be used for WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. In today's world, publishing news about a startup's investment/funding is no big deal. Almost every startup can "create" such news and if we go by such a literal interpretation of GNG, wikipedia will become a directory of companies. But that precisely goes against WP:NOTDIR. To prevent this, we try to find out whether the the company is featured prominently in mainstream media (and not techblogs). Most notable companies will usually be profiled in mainstream media and these article will not be "5 line mentions in a redressed press release". This particular entity is nowhere close to being notable at this point and I advocate a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This nails the problem with the referencing on this article - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2016 (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.