Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarketInvoice

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. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MarketInvoice

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why the page should be deleted

It should definitely be deleted. The company is small as per the sources and this article is clearly self-promotional.94.12.89.249 (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC) (This is the explanation for the deletion proposal, copied from Talk:MarketInvoice#Self Promotion?)[reply]

Keep The article has an impressive number of reliable news sources and the business has been the recipient of a number of non-trivial awards and is a partner in a notable government financial program. If the language is promotional we should fix that but I do not think we should delete an article about a company with such evidence of notability only because the business does not have many employees. The company is responsible for the movement of tens of millions of pounds a month - that's not a small business. Joja lozzo 00:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an interesting AfD. I shepherded this through AfC some years ago, with no knowledge of the sector or the article's author, and almost none of Wikiprocess. The company is very new and the reportage was largely that it was in existence in an unusual sector - perhaps that aspect is notable. Some of the reportage is brief passing mention, as the BBC which just mentions the company's name in a list of three, that does not confer notability. The article was a first contribution by a new user; it is possible he knew the company or was simply interested in the area and the City, as he also edited Invoice discounting and John Silvester Varley once each (small edits), but there is no evidence of inside involvement or paid editing. The article is not particularly promotional in tone, and while the language is in places slightly 'newsy', that can be put down to a new editor, sourcing from news reports, and interest in the topic. Being a Wired 'Startup of the Week' and so the exclusive topic of a feature article may not guarantee notability but certainly suggests it - it is somewhat short of being an 'award' but represents a substantial mention in a reliable source. The two Daily Telegraph articles, again a substantial discussion in a reliable source, indicate that the journalist involved remained interested over a 3-month period and thought the matter sufficiently newsworthy to discuss twice; of course he may have had a column to fill. The City A.M. Innovation of the Year Award is a notable event for a company. Despite any reservations we may have, and noting as many editors have done over the years that the notability threshold is ridiculously low, this article does clear the bar, resting as it is on its lowest setting. But the mountains will have washed away into the sea before the Notability standard is revised. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - promotional tone can be fixed, and it's now got reasonable coverage from several reliable secondary sources. Ruby Murray 16:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be WP:GNG and the tone is fixable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Multiple reliable, independent sources here giving non-trivial coverage. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:19, 5 March 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.