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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Finance/archive

Transfergo (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)

Repost + cross-wiki spam, WP:PAID (recently created same pages in different wikis). Was deleted "Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Doesn't look significant. Suspicious but the IP and one user are trying to delete the db-repost template. Кронас (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lithuania. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: VentureBeat and other funding announcements... Nothing currently in sources in the article we can use. This is the best I could find [1] and it's a contributor post, so not a RS. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz can you delete it as AfD outcome instead of refundable G7? there is a relevant discussion about this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2024_February_20

WP:G7 was modified and "If an author requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the closing admin may interpret that request as agreement with the deletion rationale." text was added as a result of that discussion. Tehonk (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to accomodate your request unless the article is undeleted and then redeleted and I'm not sure that's an option that I'm up for at the moment but maybe another closer would do this sequence of steps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big board scam (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)

This appears to fail WP:NEVENTS due to lack of WP:PERSISTENCE coverage and a lack of WP:LASTING impact. The coverage seems routine and since WP is not a newspaper, we shouldn't create articles on every scam just because it has been reported in WP:109PAPERS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Finance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Run of the mill scam with no lasting impacts. TH1980 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Khanna (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)

Part of the Khanna series of articles created and maintained by an apparent COI editor. Completely fails WP:BASIC. One of the worst cases of WP:REFBOMBING I've ever seen. Sources are either trivial mentions or don't mention the subject at all. Googling "Aditya Khanna" returns nothing – I can only find results about a tennis player. If you look closely, you'll notice that the majority of the article is cited to primary sources. There are 8 citations to his LinkedIn, for example. C F A 💬 15:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Delhi. C F A 💬 15:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete: Mainly primary sources. I see that there is some notability/coverage in a few areas, but the fact is that the article is mainly primary sources and does not quite meet the longevity criteria ("Notability is not temporary"). MohReddy (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agreeing with non-notability of the person and the page being made up of REFBOMBs. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wang (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)

A WP:BEFORE did not reveal that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, California, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Promotional. No SIGCOV or GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farm Credit Bank of Texas (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Haven't managed to find a single independent piece offering significant coverage. There are a few trivial namedrops here and there and that's about it. C F A 💬 19:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, and Texas. C F A 💬 19:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is not an ordinary bank, but one of five regional quasi-governmental institutions that lend to agribusinesses. It needs work, but not deletion. I would not oppose a merger with an appropriate article. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardholder Information Security Program (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)

Single ref in About section; Visa program established in 2001 and then shut down in 2004, receiving little WP:SIGCOV. Cursory Google search appears that it was revived later under PCI DSS, but nothing that would pass WP:GNG for this specific program. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 08:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 08:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To Editor: Please don't delete this page. It's an important reference to a set of security guidelines that are still often referenced. Informing people that it's been superceeded by another security rule (PCI) is really valuable. Please do not remove it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.159.90 (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ASEAN countries and subdivisions by minimum wage (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 seems to be entirely based on original research. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Economics, Geography, and Lists. C F A 💬 02:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. this falls under WP:NOTSTAT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar with page List of countries by minimum wage and List of first-level administrative divisions by GRDP, they also contain original research. if this page was delete, kindly to delete those page too. Warm Regards. Applaused (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRUFTCRUFT, and WP:SIMPLYLINKINGTOAPOLICYPAGEDOESNOTCONSTITUTEANARGUMENTTHATSOMETHINGFAILSTOCOMPLYWITHTHEPOLICY. jp×g🗯️ 06:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar with page List of countries by minimum wage and List of first-level administrative divisions by GRDP, they also contain original research. if this page was delete, kindly to delete those page too. Warm Regards. Applaused (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also this page will continue to expand to provinces, states, etc for teh future. Already have the source. Applaused (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Miminity, mixing countries and "subdivisions" seems a bit odd, and the fact that all it lists are cities. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As per my last message, this page will continue to expand, to provinces, states, etc. still in progress, list can be waiting, or you kindly can contribute thx. Applaused (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the list talks about cities. Except for Singapore which is its own case. I think this topic is note worthy. I recommend changing the name of the article to List of ASEAN cities by minimum wage. If you have countries, subdivisions and cities togethor, you will get an enormous list. I think you should start with cities and then build from that. If it is kept and reliable sources are used. I am in favour of keeping article. O.maximov (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors. If you can offer your opinion on this article, please cast a "vote" on what should happen to it (and why).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to pass WP:NLIST here and here. It doesn't look like a WP:BEFORE scan was done. More could be found in journals. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Credit Data (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)

Non-notable, could only find primary sources LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. LR.127 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I found some academic journal articles to establish notability for Global Credit Data and added them to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep organization is a key player in the financial industry, offering extensive credit risk data that is crucial for financial institutions and researchers. Its contributions and collaborations with major banks around the world underline its significance and notability. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not how notability works; notability isn't equivalent to importance. See WP:N. Janhrach (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources are available to meet WP:GNG etc 92.40.196.243 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've improved the article's structure. gidonb (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sourcing either points to reports published by this organization or are PRIMARY sources. None of the sources provide in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *organization*. Perhaps some of the Keep !voters above can point to any particular page/paragraph in their sources which meets our criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The company's data products are cited in at least 361 studies, including some studies in very good journals. Most of the time, Google Scholar does not pick up on data citations, so I think this is a pretty good indication that that the data created by the company are in widespread use. Most of these publications will describe the data in a standalone section, so I consider this to be significant independent coverage of the data product. Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The company doesn't inherit notability from its product. The article is clearly about the company, not the product. Janhrach (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some proper source analysis rather than statements of 'I found x source' or 'x source is available', please elaborate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources listed is a valid reason for GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

Keep GCD (Global Credit data is active in this nich Credit Risk make, see our more recent collaboration/Publication with ECB https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2954~1d1f8942c9.en.pdf?59655971c5e2084fe32ab99288b1eb6b and our start of collaboration with UNEP FI https://globalcreditdata.org/unepfi-esg-climaterisk/ . We also have annual collaboration with ICC Trade Register https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/policies-reports/icc-trade-register-report/. For all our recent activities, initiative and publication, you can saw it on our linkedin webpages https://www.linkedin.com/company/globalcreditdata

Warm Regards,MichaelDhaenens (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources or confirmation of routine business activities, they don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelDhaenens: Are you from the company? If yes, read WP:COI, please. Janhrach (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LinkedIn is hardly a reliable source, saying we and our implies you work for the company, Michael. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Links I find are in trade journals, PR items or brief mentions [2], none of which help. Sources 1 and 4 now in the article are tagged as non-RS by Cite Highlighter, so non-reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're associated with the company, you must declare any conflict of interest here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per Oaktree b. Under NCORP, we have a higher standard for notability. While "they get cited a lot" or "people use their work" might fly for some people (see, for example, NACADEMIC), it does not establish notability for corporations. Brief mentions, even in academic journals, are not significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coverage in google news seems rather routine and would not satisfy WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sources identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Asked by the admin a few comments above to review sources: the ECB is a government body, usually considered a primary source, then we have the company's own website, which is also primary... The only decent sourcing in the article is Source 2, where a peer-reviewed journal uses data from the company to analyze things (which is fine I suppose, it's not directly about the company however). None of the sources presented are helpful and most aren't even useful for the various reasons listed in this comment. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, to comment on the remainder of the sources given above: a trade register and linkedin, neither of which are acceptable for proving notability. I'm afraid none of the new sources presented can be helpful in establishing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GCD (which isn't a company btw, it's an organisation with member banks) is definitely notable — it represents 50+ of the world’s biggest banks and is a key player in credit risk benchmarking. Their data and reports are widely used in academic studies, industry reports, and by regulators, showing they have a real impact on the financial sector. As previous commenters have set out, and as can be see from the 10 and half pages of google scholar results of papers talking about their database (one of the primary functions of GCD), there are plenty of reliable sources on GCD, easily meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hentheden (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]