Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneyfacts.co.uk (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Shereth 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyfacts.co.uk[edit]

I am nominating this article in order that a consensus can be reached as to whether this article should stay. The website may not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article may also represent self promotion and be written by someone with a conflict of interest.

It was created (under a different title) on 10 April 2007, then nominated for speedy deletion within 8 minutes. It was speedily deleted by Qwghlm the same day.
Three days later it was recreated and then nominated for speedy deletion within 1 minute. It was speedily deleted by Anetode the same day.
It was recreated more than a year later and speedily deleted by NawlinWiki.
It was recreated under its present title and nominated for speedy deletion, which was declined by DGG.
It was nominated at AfD. The AfD was closed (by me) as 'Delete', but that decision was overturned at this deletion review. Several participants suggested that the article ought to be relisted.

As an admin whose decision has been overturned, I will not advocate either 'keep' or 'delete' in this debate. However, if the article is kept, we may wish to change the article name to Moneyfacts. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep: I have heard of it and it is a major player in the UK financial information and price comparison fields, although possibly less so than it used to be. Its data is used by major media sources like the Observer. The article needs rewriting and renaming to reflect that fact that more people see Moneyfacts' data in newspapers and other sources than directly on their own web page. The web page does not deserve an article in itself but the organisation scrapes through as notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, ~~per nom~~ ukexpat (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I don't bother people who say "per nom" but in this case the nominator specifically disclaimed any "keep" or "delete" position. Protonk (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, OK - non-notable, no significant coverage other than press releases etc as per your comments below. – ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notability is not an issue, as per a casual Google search: [1]. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that whole list. Each one of those is a reference to moneyfacts. Not one (please double check me, it is late) that I read was more than a brief reference to a spokesperson or a report. Many of them were press releases. To me, it seems like this is an earned media case. Press organizations need quotes and moneyfacts likes to give them. Protonk (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The major financial media is repeatedly seeking this organisation out for commentary on news stories. In my book, that is a confirmation of notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. No one has written a story about them. How are we to assert notability without some original research? I know this sounds stupid, but it is the point of this encyclopedia. Whatever content is here should only be here if someone has written about it first. Protonk (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Here is a google book rundown. I can't check each book, but plenty of them look like the news references did, small references. That is checking for "moneyfacts.co.uk". A less restrictive term like "moneyfacts" returns this. That list is considerably longer but as I suspected, much more unfocused. This web search of the full term shows most of the top hits are from moneyfacts itself. That usually isn't a good sign. It isn't always a BAD sign. Wikipedia results fill the first page for that term. We may read too much or too little into google searches, but I'm not sure that we may read anything conclusive from these particular searches. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Moneyfacts based on its regular mention in reliable media as a source of financial information. I do agree with the nominator (well non-nominating nominator..) that it is advertising and in dire need of a rewrite with reliable sourcing, but this is no reason to delete a seemingly notable website. I suggest dropping of the .co.uk extension to be more encyclopedic. Rasadam (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable website Astrotrain (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major service--probably change title. I do not regard being a top hit on google as a negative indication of anything, except that they have arranged their SEO to get their own sites higher on the list, which suits their PR purposes, but of course does not help us. Checking the GBooks results, the first few show them in a list, and the later ones include several that specifically state its importance. The chaffey book in particular is a major work, and uses it as a resource. As for GNews, since as Protonk says, the news media are continually searching for quotes, the place they turn to for them is Moneyfacts.DGG (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me an article that says that "the place news organizations in England turn to for financial facts is moneyfacts.co.uk" and I'll !vote keep. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still on the fence with this article, but I don't think I'm being clear about the Gnews or the Gbooks references (~~I haven't read each of the books, so some may have significant coverage~~). If we assume that the news references found in google offer significant coverage, from what source will this encyclopedia article be built? As for the google hit thing, my point was that with a very specific search term "moneyfacts.co.uk", if the weight of sub-pages on moneyfacts is higher than any web reference to it, there may not be all that significant coverage of it on the web. We may assume without too much of a stretch (I agree with it, at least) as DCG does, that this ranking may be in part due to Search Engine Optimization. But Here is the 4th page of searches (the wikipedia page for moneyfacts was on the second page, I believe) we are still looking at only press releases, news references (the same ones as in gnews) and financial blog postings (outside of moneyfacts sites). And now I've read the online available books from that list. They are all short references (e.g. inline links or in a helplist). None were more than 2 sentences and none mentioned moneyfacts aside from a suggestion on where to find financial info. Protonk (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage by reliable sources.--Boffob (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not satisfy WP:WEB's condition 1: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." - only a single mention in the Guardian as far as I can see, and it appears to be a puff piece copy&paste of a press released rather than a detailed treatment or critique. Does not appear to satisfy criteria 2 or 3 either. Note I was the admin who speedily deleted a different version but I believe I followed procedure correctly then and am basing my judgement on agreed standards this time as well. Qwghlm (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it hands out yearly awards to mortgage and other credit businesses. The awards get reported on, and are called "prestigious", "coveted", etc. 153 Google news hits just for the awards. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the list of Google News hits on the awards contains a lot of press releases and non-RS stuff I see that the Guardian is included and that has persuaded me to switch from "weak keep" to "keep". When the article is rewritten the awards should be included in it. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update:: I have just rewritten the article more or less completely. Please can the people advocating deletion have another look and let me know what you think. The plan would be that the article would be moved to Moneyfacts. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the recent re-write by Daniel Rigal and sorry for the confusion by the recent move, failed to notice AfD tag. The website may not be notable as a website in strict WP:WEB terms but the company is notable. The article belongs at Moneyfacts with a re-direct from the current home. We don't hold Amazon/Amazon.com and Google/Google.com to different standards. The company has received the coverage and the only reason it appears to have been moved here was from the repeated deletion at the main article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep (If I've accidentally !voted above let me know or just strike it out). I'm looking at the current revision at this time 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC). The only independent source that covers moneyfacts in a non-trivial fashion is the guardian's blog. While I know that a blog run by a news organization is likely to have editorial control, I get the impression that the mention provides only limited notability. It is, however, miles beyond the rest of the news mentions and book mentions. Either way, it is pretty borderline. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a blog. It is a column in the paper. This is what its article history says: "This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday September 24 2000 on p8 of the Cash section.". --DanielRigal (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OIC. Protonk (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I added this BBC source to the article: Attack on money 'best buy' tables. And this Telegraph source Moneysupermarket paid rival £3.9m. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, on a lighter note, the CEO is named Paul Pester, and the spokesman is Andrew Hagger. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changed to weak keep above. the article has at least one RS suggesting notability. should be renamed after the AfD, tho. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move article to Moneyfacts. Article has significant coverage in reliable sources thus establishing notability. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (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.