Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benzinga (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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benzinga

AfDs for this article:

[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)

It is my opinion that this article falls short of the WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH standards in regarding to sourcing and significant coverage. Some of the sourcing comes from the Benzinga site itself, other coverage is minimal and does not go into any great depth. At least one major contributor to the article was paid to polish the text (and that person has since been blocked). I welcome the conversation on the editorial merits of this article. Thank you. Capt. Milokan (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Finance, Companies, Websites, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
note that a previous version of this article was deleted.

I agree that nearly all available souces with exeption of CRJ article (which trashed Benzinga as reliable news source, in some depth) don't meet standards. Two or three other secondary sources ARE reputable sources, but mostly is just brief, superficial coverage of a Benzinga press release about its aquisition. These items don't confirm, (but merely "report") info in press release. The SEC I suppose is a "primary source," certainly reliable.

Nearly all other sources here are junky.

The assertion above, that somebody was "paid" to work on this article, seems plausible but unknowable, and thus in some sense incorrect. 212.95.5.96 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(cont. from june 30) I vote for "delete" based on poor sourcing & other qualities.

213.142.97.157 (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and nothing has changed since this article was deleted the last time in 2012. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CJR article easily and obviously meets ALL criteria listed above. Odd that this fact would seen obscure to anyone.

Note also, that objectively, the CJR article offers a very negative view of Benzinga as a reputable news source.

Among the MANY other sources used in the article, a small handful besides CJR meet "reliablity" guidelines, but fail on all other criteria cited above by highking.

Strictly applying these criteria would require deletion. 213.142.97.157 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the WP:NCORP problems cited by the nominator and the two previous editors. This discussion provides a great incentive for editors to acquaint themselves with WP:NCORP. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2024 (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.