Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MoneyFarm


 * 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. It has been demonstrated that the subject meets WP:COMPANY/WP:CORPDEPTH. Concerns regarding promotional tone should be addressed through the normal editing process. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

MoneyFarm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

promotional and non notable.The refs are essentially mere notices of funding. The combination of borderline notability and promotionalism is a very good reason for deletion: articles like this violate NOT DIRECTORY.  DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@DGG this is only one of several as you can see here I am not sure exactly how you define what should and should'nt be on wikipedia but it really does seem to be based on peoples interpretations rather than factual definitions by which pages are being moderated. I believe other opinions are necessary on this matter as these pages serve purpose with factual information difficult to find across the internet. (Marcusw572 (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Delete as this has all of the signs of not yet notable, newly srated, localized and still being funded thus there is still not enough solidity for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  18:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment (to closer) – See WP:NEWCOMPANY. North America1000 03:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Do not delete this is a fruitless exercise to remove useful information from wikipedia, if you take this approach to the content here you will end up tearing down many many pages for no net benefit to the community. If seems illogical removing factual information that is hard to find elsewhere... (Marcusw572 (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Strong keep, the company easily meets WP:COMPANY, as apparently received significant, non routine coverage in all the most important Italian news sources. There are currently about 10,600 news articles in Google News,, plus hundreds more in the archives . I just made a very quick search, and I found examples of coverage which include multiple articles in the main Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera eg. , multiple articles in the main Italian business publication Il Sole 24 Ore, see here, eg.  and , multiple articles in La Repubblica  eg.  and , multiple articles in MF Milano Finanza, another authoritative businness publication  and so on. I can dig indepht and provide additional examples, but apparently this is not even a close call. Article needs some cleanup, but notability is obvious. Cavarrone  11:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Cavarrone says, this company appears all the time in the Italian press, and quite a bit in English news sources (eg: FT Adviser, Business insider). Some are promotional, but not all are, and I think the potential to make a suitable article out of those sources is there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, such as those posted by and  atop. I have copy edited the article to address the very minor promotional tone that was previously there. The article presently has a neutral tone that simply provides an overview of the company. North America1000 03:16, 19 June 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.