- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
PlatinumWealth
- PlatinumWealth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's just really nothing that I'm finding to suggest that this is a notable website. A new search returns 148 results, but nearly all of them are to moneyweb.co.za, so much so that when you exclude them from results you are left with exactly two ( [1], [2]). Turns out, both of those show up because the site is mentioned in the comments section, and not in the article at all.
And it turns out that of the moneyweb sites, looks like most/all of those are also showing up because of a registered account named PlatinumWealth.co.za which apparently regularly comments on content there.
It's promotional, but long enough that there's probably something in there conceivably savable, and it makes a claim of significance, but... just doesn't appear to be notable at this time. TimothyJosephWood 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator: Promotional with no signs of significant coverage. The fact that the owner is registering using his website name to comment profusely elsewhere indicates that they are trying to increase their visibility; this article is no doubt another step toward that goal. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per TJW. The subject fails WP:N on both of its points: it doesn't have substantial independent coverage, and it is excluded from being included in Wikipedia per WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
PlatinumWealth
- PlatinumWealth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's just really nothing that I'm finding to suggest that this is a notable website. A new search returns 148 results, but nearly all of them are to moneyweb.co.za, so much so that when you exclude them from results you are left with exactly two ( [1], [2]). Turns out, both of those show up because the site is mentioned in the comments section, and not in the article at all.
And it turns out that of the moneyweb sites, looks like most/all of those are also showing up because of a registered account named PlatinumWealth.co.za which apparently regularly comments on content there.
It's promotional, but long enough that there's probably something in there conceivably savable, and it makes a claim of significance, but... just doesn't appear to be notable at this time. TimothyJosephWood 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator: Promotional with no signs of significant coverage. The fact that the owner is registering using his website name to comment profusely elsewhere indicates that they are trying to increase their visibility; this article is no doubt another step toward that goal. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per TJW. The subject fails WP:N on both of its points: it doesn't have substantial independent coverage, and it is excluded from being included in Wikipedia per WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni ( talk) 19:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.