Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Coin & Bullion

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Coin & Bullion

[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)

essentially an advertisement. The references are either promotional links, or links to events where the subject was of only peripheral concern--or awards to an individual, not the orgnaization DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At first I was hesitant on this article because it seemed like an ordinary coin retailer but I believe there are enough sources to show its a notable rare coin dealer in the Beaumont, Texas area and beyond.--Excel23 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete - If I were reviewing this article as a draft at AFC, I would decline it as failing to address corporate notability because it is about what the company says about itself, and not what third parties say about the company. At AFD, this is an article that is about what the company says about itself. I have notability concerns and tone concerns. The article contains too much sales talk, including duplicating a reference to its CEO as America's gold expert (and duplication indicates sloppy editing). I am not making a definite assessment on whether the company is notable, because the article needs to be blown up and started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not demonstrate notability, thus fails verifiability principles. It is also too promotional and violates Wikipedia's purposes by existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough sources to show notability. I propose to add an advert tag instead of outright deletion so it can be cleaned up.--Blurz (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Lots of dependent sources, or interview style article that fails WP:ORGIND, straight up advertising, press-releases, or source that are very low-quality failing WP:CORPDEPTH and primary. Fails WP:DEL14, WP:DEL4. A small article of little worth, except to the company. scope_creep^Talk 14:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep but improve removed some slightly promotional-sounding words, removed unsupported statement and added one new reference. Cleaned up punctuation. Meets guidelines, but could use continued improvement.Star7924 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see significant news coverage, although nothing from major media, I think there is enough industry press (peer reviewed) to keep this one. A few sources are profiles such as Bloomberg, so this may need a little cleanup. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough coverage to justify inclusion. There are a few primary sources as also pointed out by Expertwikiguy and should be addressed by clean up, rather than deletion. I have added two more references. We could also use huffpost piece as a reference that reports Universal Coin & Bullion to be one of the National Rifle Association’s top backers and a member of the NRA Business Alliance.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria for notability has nothing to do with the volume of coverage but on the quality of the content of the references. The HuffPost piece is commenting on what they themselves describe as an "advertorial" so no, it cannot be used to establish notability as it is 1) a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and 2) is based on information provided by the company and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing 18:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference meets NCORP requirements. Topic fails notability. HighKing 13:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 07:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. A donation of $6,000 is significant coverage? Puhlease. Other sources just as dubious. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

How about: BLOCK : fails the SOCK test :) Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Advetising. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (DGG), WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. In 2007, this could be forgiven, but in 2020 everybody knows we have rules. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 16 December 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.