Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CMDportal (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Since the article has already been deleted by Deb (talk · contribs), there is no point in keeping this discussion open. If any editor disputes the speedy deletion, I'd suggest contacting the deleting administrator or opening an appeal at deletion review. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CMDportal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
CMDportal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unambiguous promotion and advertising. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the references supplied are inadequate. Deb (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Actually, I've just seen that there was a debate previously, so this could be speedy deleted. Deb (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Thank you for creating this page. Could you please clarify how this page is "Unambiguous promotion and advertising". This is a relevant financial data vendor and I modelled the page after Dealogic, which seems ok. I attempted to contact the user that deleted the original page, Wizardman and obtained no reply. I sincerely cannot see what is wrong with this page. I has plenty of sources, and the language is not promotional in any way. I understand that this is time consuming, byt if you could please be somewhat more specific about what is wrong with this page, it would go a long way to clarifying what is wrong. Manuel0506 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2014 (GMT)
  • Hi Deb, thank you for your comment. Could you please be more specific in relation to how the references are inadequate? They are provided by relevant participants in CMDportal's market segment. They are clearly more relevant than the one provided in the Dealogic article. I believe that this CMDportal page was checked in the Summer and was found to be appropriate. However, I am happy to make any changes as you may find necessary. Manuel0506 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2014 (GMT)
  • Delete as nom. -It reads like a brochure. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortuna, thanks for your comment. So your issue with this article is to do with its writing style, not with its the sources? I believe that this form is the most neutral one, although I understand that it is not grand literature, but am happy to make changes if you have any suggestion as to a more acceptable style.Manuel0506 (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2014 (GMT)

No it means it is self-promotional. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Thanks for clarifying that. However, I'm terribly sorry for insisting, but I cannot see how this page is any different or more self-promotional than those of other relatively small companies in the same market, such as CarryQuote, NYSE Technologies, Dealogic, I-Net Bridge or IRESS, which are also on the list of Financial data vendor. The article describes the activities of the company and the sources highlight its relevance. It does not state that the company is good or bad, just the available facts about it, much in the same way as, or even more imparcially than, those other companies' pages. Once again, could you please be more specific about what you would like to see different? Thank you again and sorry for your trouble.Manuel0506 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2014 (GMT)

Could you maybe give some Examples? I am also having difficulties finding these Problems in the page, thanks. Fischblubl (talk)08:54, 28 January 2014 (GMT)

  • Hi Deb, Thank you for your recommended readings. However, after having a look at them, I still am unaware of what I should change in the article. As far as I can tell it complies with the Neutral point of view information on the link posted. It provides as good research on the firm as is possible, is completely balanced, impartial and provides no aesthetic opinions and does not seem to suffer from "words to watch" for problems. Genuinely, I cannot see how the post fails to comply with those conditions. Regarding the Other stuff exists issues, I understand that analogy is an imperfect form of argument, but I was not saying that just because other companies have their pages CMDportal should too. My argument is that the CMDportal article is more neutral and as relevant or more than those others. My point was simply to highlight that Wikipedia has pages of companies that participate in this market, some of which actually no longer exist. Although it is not the market leader, this is clearly an important company, providing an important service in a market that is particularly opaque, whose relevance is highlighted by the diversity of the references used and by the salience of this field in the world economy. My point was also to highlight that amid the articles on wikipedia about this type of companies, the one about CMDportal is probably one of the most neutral. In light of these facts, and of how vague your comments have been, I would really appreciate if you could be so kind as to point to specific problems in the article. I understand that this will be time consuming for you but I think it would speed up the process quite a lot. Thank you very much once again. Best, Manuel0506 (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2014 (GMT)
    • I've mentioned several times that the references are inadequate. As far as I can see, not a single one of those you quote mentions CMDportal, though most of them mention Capital Market Daily. So why do you think it is appropriate to use them here? Deb (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Deb, Thank you for clarifying this. CMDportal and Capital Market Daily are basically the same. Indeed, if you access CMDportal's official website you will find at the bottom of the page the copyright as Capital Markets Daily. As the article says, "CMDportal is a part of Capital Market Daily". I believe this was added at the end of July 2013 after an editor (Spencer) pointed out the same issue regarding a previous draft of the post. I hope this addresses your concern. Otherwise, I am happy to make this fact more explicit, although I would appreciate it if you could suggest how, given that a note of this is already in the article. Manuel0506 (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2014 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.179.90 (talk)
    • No, this doesn't help. You have given no reason for including references that don't refer to the subject of the article, which means that CMDportal's claim to notability remains unsupported. Why don't you just create an article on Capital Market Daily instead? Incidentally, references that merely say "uses information supplied by Capital Market Daily" or "according to Capital Market Daily" show only that the parent organisation produces data, not that they are a notable source of such data. Even for Capital Market Daily, I would expect better references. You allowed User:Wizardman 30 minutes to reply to your question, so I will allow you an hour to respond to this. No more prevarication, please. I'm going to speedy the article unless you can provide some sources. Deb (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Deb, I allowed Wizardman considerably more than 30mins to get back to me with a reply to the comment I posted last friday and created this page again on Monday. Your comment about the distinction between Captial Market Daily and CMDportal shows a tremendous lack of understanding about how companies work. It is the same as having an issue with an article on BP, because the company's name is actualy British Petroleum. The article is about CMDportal because that is what the company is known as, how it markets itself. Clearly this was not a concern shared by Spencer and seems like an arbitrary point to pick on. The references include articles from several high-profile market participants and from mainstream media sources, which should make the notability of this company evident. I am not prevaricating and would appreciate that you show me the same politeness and civility that I have shown you. I do not believe that threatening me is a serious way of dealing with this issue. Your despotic attitude does a diservice to Wikipedia and I will report you if you delete this article for the reasons stated above, which are clearly not adequate. Manuel0506 (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.179.90 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin[edit]

I'm speedying this article for the reasons described above. Deb (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think Manuel0506s answer was Insufficient? Am I wrong in believing he answered in an hour? Fischblubl (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CMDportal_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1086059406"