Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magellan Financial Group


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Magellan Financial Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prod tag removed without any improvements. Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Most of sources are just funding announcement. Sanketio31 (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sanketio31 (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Did the nominator bother looking for sources? This is a large investment company, managing over 100 billion A$. It is a listed company worth 8.41 Billion. It is part of the S&P/ASX 200 index. A simple search in google news shows plenty of in depth sources: .-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 16:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * None of these sources supports GNG and especially NCORP. Press releases sources like https://finance.yahoo.com/news/magellan-financial-group-asx-mfg-235735931.html with clear promo headings like (Magellan Financial Group (ASX:MFG) Has Gifted Shareholders With A Fantastic 197% Total Return On Their Investment) are not reliable and will not help here, in additon other sources sources you listed like AFR and FinancialStandard both are behind pay wall. This will need reliable sources to pass notability criteria. Sanketio31 (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Sanketio31, you would do well to read both the sources provided and policy. This nomination is comically flawed, to the point this could be closed as a Speedy Keep, you should withdraw. The source you claim is PR, is actually an analyst report that is also critical (e.g. "Investors in Magellan Financial Group had a tough year, with a total loss of 27% (including dividends), against a market gain of about 4.0%."). As for sources beyond paywalls, they are perfectly fine for notability. Australian Financial Review (AFR) and Financial Standard are precisely the sort of independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Coverage of Magellan isn't limited to just these five sources, it is comically easy to pull several additional independent, reliable, in-depth sources covering this multi-billion A$ company.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 19:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, as article currently stands, but Keep if additional independent sources can be added in line with WP:SIRS, "completely independent of the article subject". Paywalls not a problem. I couldn't see anything from the AFR though, just the SMH. Meticulo (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As stated above, Magellan is a large and significant funds manager in Australia. Article content is based on factual statements from the company's financial statements and its history. Mentioned many times in financial media including the AFR, examples: . Check to the King (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2021 (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.