Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 January 30

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< 2019 January 29
2019 January 31 >

30 January 2019

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
ThinkMarkets (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Dear editors, would you please review the ThinkMarkets page, it was deleted due to lack of brand publicity. ThinkMarkets is a FCA regulated company and it has been fetaured on Forbes. 217.38.144.68 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The FCA source is a directory entry, so it's worthless. The Financial Review source looks like it might be a WP:RS, but the article is behind a paywall, so I couldn't read it. European CEO and Finance Magnates are both highly niche publications, so they probably fail WP:AUD. Overall, I'm not hugely impressed by the sources. Combined with the fact that this is from an IP, and the comments from MER-C, above, I'm inclined to endorse. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this was not deleted due to "lack of brand publicity". It was deleted because of a lack of independent reliable sources. No amount of brand publicity would have made any difference, because that would not be independent. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Keep deleted. No sign of independent coverage, but a lot of promotion. Forbes? Where, show the link. It is probably a contributor article, not a suitable source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ángel Abrea (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A NAC for a discussion that was closed prematurely, in my opinion, whereby a relisting would have been a more functional course of action relative to the input the discussion has received. Requests from me to the closer (Sheldybett) to consider reopening the discusion (diff, diff) have been ignored. Another user (78.26) has also expressed concerns about the matter (diff, diff, diff). I recommend for the discussion closure to be overturned and for the discussion to be relisted in hopes to obtain a consensus. North America1000 08:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I've been asked to clarify my close. Given my terse statement, it seems useful to give that clarification here. The gist is that the subject didn't meet WP:NPOL simply by virtue of his being a federal maritime commissioner. There are other ways to demonstrate WP:N, such as providing WP:RS covering other aspects of the subject, which could be done in a new article. The endorsement here does not prevent such an article being written, and, as always, future developments may render any consensus obsolete. I'm told that such a draft now exists. I haven't looked at it yet, so I offer no opinion on whether it does in fact meet these conditions. In any case, this consensus is a statement about the close of a particular year-old AfD, and any opinion about a new draft would be clearly out of scope here. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Louis Sola (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello all. I would like to rediscuss the deletion of the page for Louis Sola. He has recently been nominated to a federal government post, which I believe qualifies him for a page under WP:Politician. 2605:6000:EE46:2300:F84E:D2C0:57D2:74FD (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:POLOUTCOMES isn't an extension of WP:NPOL, and it isn't binding. NPOL has much more weight since it's part of our notability guidelines, but POLOUTCOMES is just a collection of rules of thumb based on some previous discussions. As it says further up notability is ultimately determined by sources. Positions can be useful in indicating when sources are likely to exist, but I don't think being one of four commissioners of a fairly minor US government agency (Federal Maritime Commission) shows any likelihood that sources will exist. We don't even have an article on its commissioners. We do have an article on one current commissioner (Dan Maffei) but that's because he used to be a congressman. Hut 8.5 18:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_January_30&oldid=1039508030"