Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Source Financial

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source Financial

[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)

There are a few sources that are reliable, however they doesn't seems to be referring to business or covering them in-depth. Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A number of the articles used for references here are directly and specifically about Source Financial and the work its founder, Michelle Smith, is doing. See here and here and here. And then the news specifically related to recent partnerships here and here. These are reliable, independent sources and seems to clear WP:GNG. Longliveliterature! (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately none of these sources pass WP:SIGCOV. The FlairIndex and WSJ are based on interviews (not secondary/independent coverage), ThinkAdvisor is not about the company (WP:INHERITORG), the NYT is a passing mention and the InsuranceNewsNet is a Press Release. Pegnawl (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The vast majority of sources are about the founder Michelle Smith and mention her business only in passing. There are some that focus on the business, but they appear to be either mere listings or "business-as-usual" type reports/churnalism. Some seem "bloggy", so probably not sufficiently reliable. I don't see a strong base for GNG or NCORP. As it is this article fails both IMO, however if substantial editorial coverage about the company can be identified, it may just about pass. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient in-depth coverage to meet the criteria of WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 18:51, 31 July 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.