Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Business Lenders


 * 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 no consensus. ✗ plicit  06:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

World Business Lenders

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I don't think this business meets GNG. Although we have some references, they offer limited actual coverage. Most simply provide routine coverage of a new HQ.

The article was created by an editor with a possible COI but underwent significant cleanup to remove peacocking and promotional content. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United States of America,  and New Jersey. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Add "predatory lenders" to your search and you'll come up with plenty of sources. The article needs to reflect this: it still looks like an advertisement for the most part. Jacona (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources. ,,,,,(this last one is an opinion piece, but may be helpful for search clues) . Jacona (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jacona. I'll do some more looking into it later, but it looks like there might be enough for the article to stay (and be substantially rewritten). I feel I should point out that sources 1, 2, 3, and 5 are the same article, all appearing in Bloomberg publications. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep, I think there is probably enough in some of the cited sources above to get the article satisfying WP:ORGCRIT. I think it only just skims past as it stands, so further WP:SIGCOV would be helpful. Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:35, 2 August 2022 (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.