Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wealth Beyond Wall Street


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Wealth Beyond Wall Street

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still nothing suggestive of the needed independent notability and my own searches have found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister  talk  06:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 9.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 06:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey User:SwisterTwister I added this business "Wealth Beyond Wall Street" because of two things really:

1. The search "Wealth Beyond Wall Street" (And other longer tail searches combined with Free book etc) are searched 1800-2000 times more or less in Google every month.

2. The reason it is searched so much is, because this business is all over the radio, tv and other media (Not so much online mostly they are very "physical" sending postcards even from what I have heard from different people) this is happening all over the country it seems and people are interested in learning more about this company because of the economic times we live in.

Hence the high search volume.

I added into wikipedia so there is a neutral place for people to get information on the company because from what I see most reviews and such that are out there are mostly affiliates of theirs and this would be the one place that could be truly independent. Hopefully it won't get deleted. Clifffonte (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: final relist &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. essentially a promotional article, with very borderlien notability  DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand by the fact that these guys are well known through out the country as an investment company and have their business searched for from all over thousands of times every month more then some celebrities. I don't see how this couldn't have enough notability. Clifffonte (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I search quite a bit, but the dept of coverage in reliable, independent and secondary sources was clearly lacking. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 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.