Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Source UK Services

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. No-one has been able to show how the subject satisfies WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source UK Services

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Spam target. Native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 19:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what do you mean by "spam target"? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable company, has several third-party sources, and satisfies WP:NCORP. Bretalins (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi Bretalins, I'm interested that you say that several third-party sources satisfy NCORP. I'm unable to locate even a single reference that meets NCORP criteria - can you please provide a link or two here to the articles you've found? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m also going to say ~~Keep~~, as the article appears to meet GNG in my eyes. Plus, the nom’s comments are too vague. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to go through the first block of references. The references are shockingly bad. The reason I said it was a spam target, was even thought it is a small private company, it is written like that like a large public company, and reams of folk have WP:PUFFed it right up. scope_creep^Talk 00:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I suppose you have given better reasons now, so I'm going to move to a Weak Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Small private company of 34 employees. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NOTADVERTISING. scope_creep^Talk 08:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be redirected to Invesco, the company that bought it. scope_creep^Talk 08:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leaving aside the fact that this article reads like a promotional brochure, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. I've asked one Keep !voter above who says that there are sources to provide a link, I'm happy to change my !vote if references can be found and links provided. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note I dislike the fact that it appears that the author of the AfD deleted a large chunk of the article right after moving to delete. I would have much preferred to have the community pass judgement on the article as it was earlier this month.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Concertmusic: The company no longer exists. It was bought. Those product entries, which are strictly against WP:NOTADVERTISING and bolded, shouldn't be in the article, in the first place. scope_creep^Talk 00:28, 24 November 2020 (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.