Investing.com ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Hello, I believe that this deletion discussion, which was closed by Salvio giuliano (in good faith)was actually supposed to end in a clear "no consensus" (perhaps even in a keep). As instructed here I will focus mostly the technical reasoning rather than the subject's notability - but will still note that it's a platform/website ranked 180 in the world by traffic according Alexa with 50 million monthly entries and thousands of sources covering it (its deletion proposal to delete by itself is very rare as far as I know, and it had an entry for many years). Besides the nominator, the deletion discussion initially had 2 keep votes, and could have been closed as keep/no cons. but it was re-listed. Then it got no votes and was re-listed for a second time, getting another "keep vote", and it had been three weeks before getting its first delete vote. For some reason it was then relisted for a third time, which is not recommended according to guidelines, and it eventually ended in a "draw", yet got deleted. Considering this unusually long no procedure and no consensus, and the fact that more sources were found about the subject for the notability of the article which were not there initially (see draft ), please review it. Thanks, EliQM ( talk) 08:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The AfD itself was properly closed - the third relist wasn't great, but the keep !votes were awful ( WP:IAR so you can ignore WP:NCORP? please) and I don't think this can be closed any other way. If there is a new draft, I don't see the link to it to evaluate whether that would now pass the notability guidelines. There's a chance a new draft would be okay, but in no circumstances should the AfD be overturned. SportingFlyer T· C 14:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Exactly. After weighting the !votes correctly, that's a slam dunk delete. Endorse.— S Marshall  T/ C 15:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I would have closed it as No Consensus, but the Delete is a valid closure. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I understand your points, thanks regardless. @SportingFlyer, here it is: Draft:Investing.com. I added refs & details that were not previously there which prove notability, and made an effort to make it encyclopedic and neutral (can always improve ofc). An evaluation would be appreciated as it could spare the tiring process that new article drafts for review go through, which honestly may not be necessary in this case. Thanks EliQM ( talk) 20:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Most of that draft is written very promotionally. SportingFlyer T· C 23:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I took note, and just trimmed more content and balanced it further. I think articles about companies often have a natural tendency to appear promotional, and after all our goal here is to improve this encyclopedia in all fields... @ SportingFlyer:, another look would be greatly appreciated! EliQM ( talk) 13:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply