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 keep. Merging or renaming are editorial decisions that can be further discussed on the talk page. Arkyan • (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally speedy deleted as CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding the Wall Street Journal report on the company constituted as assertion of notability. Among the possible options mentioned at DRV, a merger to Harris Bank was suggested. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or MergetoHarris Bank (I was the one who suggested this at the DRV), which according to the article has owned myCFO since late 2002. The Wall Street Journal investigation into the company is in my opinion not enough for a stand-alone article, but it does make it worth mentioning on the Harris Bank article, particularly as this article is presently light on content. Note that I have set up a redirect to MyCFO at Harris myCFO, which the present article describes as the present operating name. Thryduulf 17:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen there is deleted content at Harris/myCFOadmin only which may be able to be merged into this article. Thryduulf 17:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(update based on revisions to the article and Gwernol's comment below) If the investigation is into activities that occurred before 2002 (when it was bought by Harris Bank) then I think this is the correct location for the article, it should be merged into Harris Bank if the event were post 2002 though (it isn't immediately clear from the sources in the article). Thryduulf 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leave myCFO seperate as myCFO, pre Harris Bank acqusition (1999-2002) myCFO is the primary subject of the Wall Street Journal article Vwt 09:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there appears to be genuine notability to the events surrounding the financial investigations into myCFO. Im attempting to improve and expand the article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards Gwernol 10:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I commented on the Deletion review, it's a notable firm-cum-crash, covered by CNET, Business Week, and the New York Times, even without the Wall Street Journal bit. That meets every applicable notability standard. --AnonEMouse(squeak) 14:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepmyCFO as the history of myCFO since founding in 1999, don't rename, but cross link to a seperate article on the post 2002 activities of Harris myCFO, which should link to [[2]] not just Harris Bank. The web site of mycfo.com resolves now as [[3]], the WP articles should objectively document myCFO's history since inception in 1999. In the press myCFO as a business is most often referred to as a simply "myCFO". The business has been active continuously as myCFO (and myCFO.com) since 1999 and has involved multiple notable individuals, each with WP links denoting their board service at myCFO from 1999-2002. User 24.90.11.62 is systematically trying to dissociate links between the original myCFO Board of Directors and the business history of myCFO. Each are notable individuals with professionally maintained promotional Personal Biographies on Wikipedia. The activities of the 1999-2002 business referred to, as "myCFO" is the subject of current 2007 verifiable press articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.139.48.116 (talk • contribs).
Not that this is really the place to discuss it, but - to the best of my knowledge - I have not removed any links or references to myCFO in the articles abotu its board of directors. I have, however, removed external links to the WSJ investigative report which seemed, IMO, as POV-Pushing by a single purpose account, User:Vwt, to add as many mentions of that particular article as possible in any myCFO-related article. 24.90.11.62 20:12, 2 May 2007 (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.
