Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Currencies Direct

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currencies Direct

[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)

Reads like an advertisement. Has been tagged for notability for two years without improvement. Substantially written by promotional editors. Negligible sourcing. This has never been a good article, and shows no prospects for improvability. PROD removed with the sole comment WP:NOTCLEANUP - but the only source is a puff piece in a non-RS. There's no evidence of actual notability. Can anyone produce any? I'd be delighted to be shown wrong ... David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I deprodded this because the delete justification gave me no indication that a notability assessment had been performed. Prod is not a place for deleting crappy articles. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So what does a quick WP:BEFORE tell you? - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It tells me that there are a lot of potentially WP:INDEPENDENT product review/comparison sources, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I don't have enough familiarity with this subject area to assess whether these are WP:RELIABLE. ~Kvng (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finder barely for editorial content, all the others not. It's unclear from the thing at the top how independent that page actually is - David Gerard (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, are you seriously suggesting that any of those are actual independent reliable sources? Praxidicae (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is nothing more than crufty business nonsense. There is almost nothing in the way of SIGCOV, everything I can find are press releases or otherwise not coverage in published, reliable sources (no, reviews on other business sites don't count anymore than a Yelp review would.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2019 (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.