Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Charcol


 * 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. The sources presented were found to be insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

John Charcol

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced article from SPA/COI. . Promotional. There is a small amount of coverage in specialist press but this fails my interpretation of of CORPDEPTH and GNG. Just three mentions in respectable mainstream press - http://www.independent.co.uk/money/how-low-can-they-go-home-loans-edge-towards-1-a6877621.html merely giving an opinion on something in their sector, a very brief incidental mention here https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/24/mortgage-broker-bank-building-society, then http://www.standard.co.uk/business/entrepreneurs-the-team-behind-broker-john-charcol-learns-recession-lessons-to-make-the-most-of-a-a2871386.html - a more in depth article on the company itself. not sufficient to confer notability. falls far short of it in my opinion. Rayman60 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, has significant coverage . The rest can be fixed. - The   Magnificentist  11:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  13:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I checked the 2nd half of your links - one is behind an FT paywall (7), 6 felt a little close to what I would start classifying as WP:Routine (i.e. brief article in trade publication regarding potential sale of company). 8, 9 and 10 are links I already posted. Can they be considered significant coverage? They feel very much like brief mentions. It's not about the company per se, and in my subjective interpretation of significant, this falls considerably short. Rayman60 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete While the sources themselves may meet the criteria for reliability, the references fail the criteria for establishing notability since they are either routine announcements, mentions-in-passing where an employee is fired or relying on company-produced information or quotations from company sources. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and therefore GNG. -- HighKing ++ 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per King's point. A large number trivial mentions in sources does not meet Wikipedia's WP:CORPDEPTH standards.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2017 (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.