- 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 03:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Financial Coach
- Financial Coach ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
promotional essay. There are sources, but NOT ADVOCACY is more basic. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep actually there is good references in the article and it carries meaningful content, concerns like WP:NOTADVOCACY can be addressed by tag and cleanup since the subject passess notability – Ammarpad ( talk) 11:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- NOT ADVOCACY is a fundamental policy, and it means that an article whose purpose and content is advocacy or organism should be rejected forthright, as the intention was incompatible with the basic pillar of WP, NPOV. When the subject was worth writing about in the first place is a secondary consideration, and that's the proper domain of the WP:N guidelines, When the advocacy is only incidental, then the article can be fixed, but not when its the fundamental basis of the article. The only way of preventing people form using WP for advertising isto remove it, not to help them out by fixing it. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely blatant use of Wikipedia for promotion. This was created as a draft, and I can't imagine what the editor who accepted the draft was thinking of. (I see that the draft had been re-created after previously being speedy-deleted as promotional.) Breaking sticks ( talk) 22:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- @
Breaking sticks: please can you direct me to the similar draft that was deleted per G11?
Ammarpad (
talk) 05:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, because it has been deleted. However, if it's of any interest to you the page log, including the deletion log, is
here.
Breaking sticks (
talk) 21:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- You're right. But recreation of material under G11 is allowed once it is re written in non promotional tone, and that is why this one exist. Because if the blatant promotion that got it G11'ed were not removed, it will not even come here. So since one big problem was addressed smaller problems are surmountable, since the concept is legit, verifiable in reliable sources and notable– Ammarpad ( talk) 03:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC).
- No, because it has been deleted. However, if it's of any interest to you the page log, including the deletion log, is
here.
Breaking sticks (
talk) 21:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- @
Breaking sticks: please can you direct me to the similar draft that was deleted per G11?
Ammarpad (
talk) 05:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Article is substantiated and well well written. Hello, DGG Having accessed the article i see the fundamental issues with the article is its lack of WP:NPOV and also its subtle use of Wikipedia as a promotional tool in a certain section, which is a salient feature of WP:NOTHERE, We all know this is wrong but if those issues can be addressed properly as the editor Ammarpad suggested earlier, then the article is not a bad one, as it is well referenced. Celestina007( talk ) 20:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep, but ruthlessly pare back. Ammarpad is right that some of this article's sources are good, such as this scholarly paper (though I have never heard of the redlink journal it's published in) and others exclusively discussing the subject. So some of these sources do appear to attest that "financial coaching" is a real concept that meets the GNG. However, some of this article's sourcing is garbage. DaveRamsey.com? The article needs a massive cleanup for tone. A Train talk 22:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- Yes, the article exhibits POV and advocacy starting with the title. Coach is an ill-defined title, despite the groups described in the article who are trying to standardize requirements. How does a Financial Coach differ from a Financial Advisor? One is licensed, the other not. One has statutorily-defined fiduciary responsibility, the other not. Otherwise, basic functions are the same. This article then is a POV Fork. Rhadow ( talk) 16:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a made-up concept with a name designed to circumvent laws about who can be a financial advisor. Clearly exclusively promotional. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY for a concept that's not encyclopedically relevant just yet. This perhaps deserves a mention in Financial plan, but the article is too promotional so its history is not worth preserving. "Delete". K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as advocacy. Some small pieces of it might be merged into Financial literacy, Dave Ramsey, The Dave Ramsey Show, etc. It's pretty clear that this is part of the web of Dave Ramsey articles on Wikipedia and that these should all be reviewed. Smallbones( smalltalk) 14:05, 3 November 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.