Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MNI – Market News

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 procedural keep. As warned, nominator has not advanced a reason for deletion in their own words, so closing this because this is time-wasting, and also, not today Larry Sanger (the devil of Wikipedia 😉)! (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 20:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

[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)

We regard the wikipedia article as non-notable and we want the article to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollytrinity (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and United Kingdom. Storchy (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is an odd nomination, created in the first and only two edits of a new account. I've fixed the nomination and added it to the deletion log, as described at WP:AFDHOWTO, and notified the article creator, as simple courtesy might suggest. @Hollytrinity:, can you please expand on your nomination? Why is it not notable by Wikipedia's notability guidelines? And who is "we"? Storchy (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not notable enough and propose that the article be deleted on those grounds. Hollytrinity (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you mentioned that, but how is it not notable? Which of Wikipedia's notability guidelines is it failing to meet? And who is "we"? Storchy (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject needs to have had non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources, which it does not have. Hollytrinity (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard Hollytrinity (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Shared accounts speaking in the royal we are simply not allowed and no reason for deletion outside cut-and-pastes has been advanced. I will close this myself unless the nominator gives a proper deletion rationale. Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "we" is an attempt at humor, the red link user name being holytrinity. Divine intervention in Wiki is a thing now? Please forgive our transgressions, oh God of Wiki (wouldn't that be Jimbo Wales?) Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the wikipedia article is non-notable and heavily biased with unreliable sources.

According to Wiki guidelines: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. Once again, I request this article to be deleted. Hollytrinity (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard Hollytrinity (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2022 (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.