Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACE Cash Express

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ACE Cash Express[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being sued is not terribly notable; rest of what's given is primary sourcing. Non-notable financial services company, outside of a few bumps with the law, nothing extensive found for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There appear to be multiple independent sources beyond the lawsuit, so I'd say this escapes BLP1E. [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]] There does seem to be some PROMO here that will need to be taken out. User:Let'srun 23:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a BLP. Also, those sources are mainly about expansions/acquisitions, which are considered trivial per NCORP.-KH-1 (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that not all of those sources wouldn't fulfill the significant coverage requirements on their own, but I think there is enough overall here to keep this one around, and the sources show that there has been continuing coverage about the company. For example, the 1987 merger was delayed and later cancelled [[7]] In addition, here is a article from 1999 discussing the service in a fair amount of detail. [[8]] Let'srun (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the second article, which of those two sentences would you consider commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation? The second? I suppose A consumer cashing three such checks and purchasing six money orders per month (at a cost of 29 cents per $100) would end up spending more than $280 each year at Ace Cash. technically could be considered more than no coverage at all, I guess. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think both qualify, personally. Let'srun (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this the same thing as Ace America's Cash Express? I am having some difficulty searching Ace Cash Express through Google News since a lot of their own websites stuff floods the search result with their self published materials. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per sources presented by Let'srun, which appear to be broadly reflective of the quality available, which is substantially below that we would consider significant for any subject, even ones where when the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; which CORP is not. A sample from other search engines (these are mostly random after excluding press releases, as nothing particularly distinguishes itself as more significant: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]) shows coverage that comfortably falls into the category that is not usually sufficient to establish notability, no matter if we cited all the 267 google indexed online news articles, ~450 books, etc, there is not enough content to extract without resorting to the ACE serves consumers seeking alternatives to traditional banking relationships by providing convenient, immediate access to financial services type of PR fluff we get from uncritically copying from primary sources. Which, incidentally, is enough to delete under WP:DELREASON #4 or #14, even if not necessarily #1, entirely ignoring the matter of #8 or #7. Going back to the sources again: There is zero encyclopedic content we can extract from articles that merely mention the name of the subject, or that it charges (a quantity!) of money in exchange for services, or "it got robbed". A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant. While there is a credible claim of significance, it fails N by a wide, wide margin. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(though, as another aside, there is an AI generated article [15] on the second page of google results, which still feels amusingly novel to me even if it's not very useful) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A completely non-notable payday loan placed coached in a whole lot of flowery words to deny that they even do payday loans (even though their website is all about it). Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of the article is negative; It is proved in the above discussion. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK» 01:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I'm unable to locate any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.