Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Finance

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Finance. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Finance|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Finance. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Finance

[edit]

Seafund

[edit]
Seafund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:CHURNALISM. Fails WP:NCORP. LKBT (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a notable company. Aneirinn (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Bosset

[edit]
David Bosset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meets WP:GNG, I guess. But just a small-time criminal so seems to fail WP:CRIMINAL. mikeblas (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Kvinnen (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. Although I do not see how this possibly meets WP:GNG. Kvinnen (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ComplyAdvantage

[edit]
ComplyAdvantage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely promotional with serious WP:COI concerns and lacking WP:RS to independently establish notability. Amigao (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - the article does seem to use sources that are not commonly deemed reliable, however, the tone, I suppose could be improved.
Kvinnen (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This company is not notable. Aneirinn (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PayChangu

[edit]
PayChangu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear notability. The majority of the current sources ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]) appear to be paid news. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trending fintech company in Malawi that everyone is talking about the sources are from reliable sources like Malawi24.com, nyasatimes and international sources Kalotiking (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The available coverage consists mostly of brief award mentions and promotional articles (Malawi Nyasa Times, Malawi24, Showbiz Uganda, Fintech Magazine Africa). These are lightly edited press releases or sponsored content rather than significant independent coverage. No reliable, in-depth secondary sources have been found to establish notability under WP:GNG. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I am a Malawian writer, and I can confirm that this is currently one of the most trending if not the number one fintech companies in Malawi. I believe it deserves a Wikipedia article. @Tumbuka Arch is a fellow Malawian editor who might be able to help verify this.
    Kalotiking (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kalotiking. We need sources, not words, that show that this company is notable. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – The article discusses the company’s partnership with a notable bank, which can be verified on the official website of Centenary Bank Malawi:
    [1]
    It also mentions awards the company has won. This is supported by another article from National Bank of Malawi (NBM), one of the country’s largest banks:
    [2] The award mentioned is among the most recognized in the country and is based on customer votes, which demonstrates the company’s notability[3]. Furthermore, the sources used in the article are not just Malawian blogs, but include reputable news outlets and official bank websites Kalotiking (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Malawi is very small country it's just getting started with fintech for someone interested in tech like myself my goal is to make sure i take part in writing articles about Malawian fintech and contribute here Kalotiking (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently promotional in-tone and all sources seem to be paid news articles as previously mentioned. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: promotional tone can be fixed. The company is notable given that it is the only of its kind in the country. Here, the company is quoted "a pioneering fintech company" by Malawi24 and by Nyasa Times here where is being referred to as "Fintech giant." In 2025 here, company won Firm of the Year at ICTAM Awards surpassing Airtel's service and other major firms. These are not so-called awards as awards are usually associated with effort and not "paid" promo. I could farther found this, little of this, that provides WP:GNG. While I wouldn't count "partnerships" as company's notability, mentions and describing it as a major leading Fintech in the entire country is enough to give a glimpse that company is notable. This can be used to sustain an article per WP:NEXIST.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greedflation

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Greedflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article should be merged and redirected to Price gouging (UPDATE: Better merge/redirect target is 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits). In the subsequent 11 months, the npov and wp:OR in the article appears to be getting worse, and it narrowly was closed as no consensus before. The term already has a section on price gouging 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits but it is a WP:POVFORK to keep this article as a sole article with far excessive detail for the term itself. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to your previous AFD in which the closer stated... "I don't see anyone (except the nominator) arguing for an outright deletion of the article". Cheers. DN (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did I do the nomination wrong? I meant to make it as a Merge and redirect to Price gouging 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits. While I do participate in lots of AfDs, I don't create them all that frequently. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I agree, this nomination should not be for "outright deletion", but rather "Merge and redirect" only to the suggested target article. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep Once again, the concept of sellers' inflation is distinct (about the impacts on inflation) of which price gouging is one factor but not the only one in this theory. Plenty of coverage of the concept to merit an article Superb Owl (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: per discussion below, I think 2021–2023 inflation surge makes more sense as a target redirect. Marquardtika (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits. That page for price gouging seems like a better place for this one. Price gouging covers the topic well enough. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2025 (UTC) --Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete This really should be deleted because its a transitory perjorative term (ie, a meme) with no basis in fact or economics. Its use is editorializing by partisan hacks who lack understanding of the forces of supply and demand with regards to goods and money. However, the consensus seems to be to merge. That said, I think it should actually be merged into Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and/or COVID-19 misinformation 2021–2023 inflation surge, not price gouging (which is itself a misunderstanding of the effects of supply and demand). I would be fine with whatever merge consensus however. Also, this article also should be about the claims of the phenomenon not the claimed phenomenon because there is no academic consensus as to its very existence.Metallurgist (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn, Agnieszka653, Marquardtika, Gjb0zWxOb, Doctorstrange617, and Metallurgist: - Pinging those who voted to merge to Price gouging, just in case those people were unaware of the existence of this article as an alternate merge target (and where this article forked from): 2021–2023_inflation_surge.---Avatar317(talk) 23:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would actually be perfect. Thanks for finding, updated my vote. Metallurgist (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this is a better target. Updated. Thank you. Agnieszka653 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Avatar317! I agree that 2021–2023_inflation_surge#Price_gouging_and_windfall_profits would be an ideal target. My vote above has been updated too Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Marquardtika (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Punjab, Pakistan budget

[edit]
2019–20 Punjab, Pakistan budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2023–24 Punjab, Pakistan budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2025–26 Punjab, Pakistan budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2023–24 Sindh budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2023–24 Balochistan budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2023–24 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2024–25 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019–20 Azad Jammu and Kashmir budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2023–24 Azad Jammu and Kashmir budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2023–24 Gilgit-Baltistan budget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am nominating a group of provincial budgets that I do not believe meet the notability threshold of either NEVENT or fail the considerations of simple ROUTINE coverage. Of each of these topics, there is no lasting notability beyond the coverage that each generate when it was present and accepted. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Market Wrap

[edit]
Asia Market Wrap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article unreferenced for nearly 20 years, lacks WP:SIGCOV. Previously bundled with Market Wrap, which was then blared in 2023, and European Closing Bell. Coeusin (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Ergen

[edit]
Chase Ergen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized (see "public image" section in particular) WP:BLP of a businessperson, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, people in business are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, and have to be shown to pass certain specific criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in reliable sources -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles or press releases self-published by his own companies and/or directory entries, with very little GNG-worthy coverage shown at all.
Further, this has already been moved into draftspace once for lacking GNG-worthy sourcing, only to get moved back into articlespace by its own creator two days later -- so while moving it back into draftspace a second time is obviously possible, I'm not going to do that without wider discussion about whether it's warranted in this case or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on Dflovett's changes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to Draftspace or Keep. I've flip-flopped on this a few times, but at this point I think it makes sense to do one of these two options. Full-blown "Delete" does not seem necessary at this point but I can see an argument for "Move back to Draftspace".
Dflovett (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregorio Napoleone

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gregorio Napoleone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly resume-like and promotional; questionable whether there is WP:SUSTAINED notability here backed up with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided do not establish notability. Aneirinn (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article has 26 sources (at the time I am doing this) in the reference section which is impressive but I think if you take the time to read them you'll see that they don't reach the level we require to show notability.
1. profile, doesn't confer notability
2. profile, doesn't confer notability
3. same source as 2
4. not mentioned in source
5. not mentioned in source
6. 404 and not archived, no further comment
7. 404 and not archived, no further comment
8. broken link and not archived, no further comment
9. 404 and not archived, no further comment
10. profile, doesn't confer notability
11. profile, doesn't confer notability
12. profile, doesn't confer notability
13. same source as 2
14. partial paywall but I don't believe this source confers notability
15. partial paywall but doesn't seem to be talking about him so its probably not in-depth
16. primary document, not in-depth
17. business announcement, not in-depth
18. primary document, not in-depth
19. business announcement, no mention
20. same source as 12
21. list of donors
22. about his wife, not in-depth on him
23. as far as I could tell only mention was they were the source of artwork talked about
24. behind a log-in but I think it is similar to the above (kinda guessing)
25. about his wife, not in-depth on him
26. about his wife, not in-depth on him

Hopefully the 40+ minutes I spent writing this up can convince you that the sources here do not support a designation of Notability (although we might be close for his wife) Moritoriko (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and deleted/marked many of the sources so the current version no longer matches your list, but this version does. Lamona (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Responses to the source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am genuinely sorry to inform you that you have waisted your time. I advise reading WP:NEXIST and WP:NNC. Sourcing in an article is irrelevant to determining notability. The presence of sources in an article that demonstrate notability is solid evidence that those sources exist, but the lack of inclusion of sources that demonstrate notability is not evidence that such sources do not exist. Again, I do sympathize with the time sunk, but maybe your post can save someone else the time at least. Ike Lek (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ike Lek, the last sentence in WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." So why exactly do you think the person is notable? Is there another source not yet mentioned that shows this? Or are you saying that well there could be another source? What would that source say? Or are you disagreeing with @moritoriko's assessment of the sources currently in the article? Lijil (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am not saying that I am positive that sources demonstrating notability exist, although I suspect they do. That isn't the point I was trying to make. My point was that the quality of sources currently used in the article is irrelevant to notability, and cannot be used as evidence that the subject is not notable.
Separate from that, I do think the subject is likely notable. I will try to look for better resources online when I have more free time, although I do not speak Italian and sources may be in print. Still, WP:GNG only requires the existence of these sources to be presumed. Ike Lek (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed, fine. But we need to see some indication of them here. "Trust me, bro" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely understandable that "trust me bro" isn't enough, however my point about article sourcing being irrelevant still stands. I will make a new comment with some potential sources. Ike Lek (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not being able to vet all of these fully, and I know some will be useless, but I hope this can still be a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. - Ike Lek (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all about Sterling or financial firms, not about this person. "Prominent mentions" are just that, mentions. We need articles about his time as a politician or articles about him as a business person, not simply an article about something else that mentions him. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBASIC only requires that the subject has "received significant coverage" in multiple secondary sources, not that the sources be primarily about the subject. I didn't include any sources that were just his name attached to art galleries or only mentioned him as being married to his wife. If you want to provide specific reviews of how any of the articles do not contribute to demonstrating potential notability, that would be helpful. Ike Lek (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to access most of those; all behind paywalls. Like User:Oaktree_b says none of them seem to be about him. Can anyone who can access these give us at least one that is significantly about him (with some sample text, if possible). Thanks! Lamona (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. I'm baffled by the comment "Sourcing in an article is irrelevant to determining notability" because although we don't require sources to be the current version of an article, they aren't irrelevant at all. Sourcing is how notability is demonstrated, whether they are in or not in the article. If you are arguing that sources are irrelevant than how else are you arguing that notability is demonstrated in an AFD discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I think there's been a bit of misunderstanding. I am not saying sources are irrelevant. The existence of the right type and quality of sources is essential. I'm saying that the current state of sourcing in the article is irrelevant, so it does not matter if none of the cited sources demonstrate notability as long as sources that do are presumed to exist. Also sources do not need to meet the same requirements to be used within an article that they do to show a subject's notability. It is completely possible for an article to be about a notable subject and yet cite none of the sources that make the subject notable, as long as such sources verifiably exist. My point wasn't that it doesn't need sources that demonstrate notability, but that the analysis of the article's current sources is irrelevant to notability. All it does is show these articles don't show notability, but proves nothing about if others exist. Sources can only demonstrate notability or fail to demonstrate notability; they cannot demonstrate non-notability. Thus, the current sources cannot be evidence of a lack of subject notability. Ike Lek (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Moritoriko and my own search of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Guardian archives. I only found passing mentions from these searches. I also searched 50+ Wikipedia Library collections. Mr. Napoleone sounds like a financial big shot but not quite big enough to meet our notability requirements. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, or Draftify . The weight of the press releases and promotional material is killing the article. Moritoriko analyzed the sources better than I can. Then someone brings up rich-business-person-wire, as if it's not written on behalf of the subject. This is also a prime example of Ref-bombing that wrecks a nice little stub, and is an example of our existential crisis. If it's kept, I feel obligated out of concerns about the continuing viability of our project to stubify it myself. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like User:Moritoriko I went through all of the sources. I merged some, deleted ones that had little or nothing to do with the text, and marked some as failing verification. Honestly, I could have gotten rid of more. He is indeed a businessman and most of the sources are mentions of him in some business capacity. Some of the sources were about something the article claimed he had done or worked on, but the source didn't mention him. (e.g. Omni Helicoptors) The sources about his wife name-checked him but did not give him credit for purchasing the art nor creating the cookbook. Being a trustee of NYU is not in itself notable. There's quite a lot of overreach here. At the same time I easily found sources that can confirm some of the facts (e.g. helicopters again) better than the existing sources. But again, nothing to support notability. Lamona (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.centenarybank.co.mw/news/centenary-bank-paychangu-digital-payments-malawi
  2. ^ https://malawi24.com/2025/06/13/nbm-plc-promises-customers-more-enjoyable-digital-banking-experience/
  3. ^ https://www.nyasatimes.com/paychangu-named-ict-firm-of-the-year-at-ictam-corporate-awards-2025/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Finance&oldid=1299402805"