Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrokerChooser

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrokerChooser

[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)

This article has appeared at the same time that we have started see the domain being spammed xwiki by bots, and it beggars credibility that they are both happening simultaneously. I believe that the notability of this site needs to be independently checked, and the independence of the contributor needs to be verified. Concerns about both paid editing and conflict of interest. I was tempted to blacklist the whole domain forthwith based on the spambots, though feel that it is better to have a conversation first. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Websites, and Malta. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page was created by a WP:SPA and there is some clumsy cheating in the sources. E.g. the naive calculation that the paywall won't allow one to discover that the Financial Times article does not mention BrokerChooser at all. However, gNews shows that the thing itself may be notable. So, at first I was going to suggest draftification instead of removal, but the promotional tone of the article is such that I think it would be better to start from scratch. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:38, 12 March 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.