Talk:Webull

Notability
Based on my evaluation of this article's sources using the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP, I believe this article has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and can be deemed notable. — F ORMAL D UDE (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , completely wrong assessment. Entity is not at all notable as per the above logic - Fails WP:NCORP, also lacks citations as per WP:RS/WP:RSP protocols. Pinging and  for a better assessment.  - Hatchens (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear and, kindly note. An IP and an ID is involved in removing the CSD tag put via page curation route. Also, tried to remove the removal notice from the creator's talk page. - Hatchens (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yahoo Finance source is not significant coverage. Can't judge business insider source. Most of the citations in the article as of now seem unrelated to the topic but that's as far as I can assess.  Pro lix 💬 11:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes it is riding on the fame of Robinhood. I consider this entity to be qualifying for WP:TOOSOON. Besides it does lack WP:SIGCOV... in the current timeline. - Hatchens (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree.  Pro lix 💬 16:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Completely disagree. The Yahoo Finance source is literally only about Webull, how is that not significant coverage? The business insider source also is completely verifiable. — F ORMAL D UDE (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am not able to access BI but I don't think that YF is significant. I removed a number of links that didn't mentioned the subject or failed to add anything substantial. I'll take some time to review and re-assess the sources. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  18:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the Motley Fool source also likely passes WP:NCORP. — F ORMAL D UDE (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear, why are you removing the CSD tag without contesting? the same thing has been done by this IP 36.103.228.91 just a few hours before your action? If there is any WP:COI, then simply declare it on your user page.
 * P.S: and ... kindly take a note of these actions. Do these actions qualify for WP:SPI? Earlier this page was deleted for the following reasons. - Hatchens (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S: and ... kindly take a note of these actions. Do these actions qualify for WP:SPI? Earlier this page was deleted for the following reasons. - Hatchens (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

- This page was earlier deleted (in the 1st attempt) by and was WP:DRAFTIFY (in the 2nd attempt) by. Now, in the third attempt... the scenarios are quite same i.e., WP:COVERT. And, certain IDs/IPs are involved in removing the WP:CSD tag without contesting it. - Hatchens (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Long case. Wow. What a game by FD. • 09:36, 2 January 2021 FormalDude created page Webull (Created article from draft:Webull)
 * I didn't noticed earlier that FD was the creator of this article. Their removal of CSD tag is completely wrong. Draft declined eight times and finally rejected for the ninth time. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  05:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to AfC reviewers including, , , and  as recorded on Draft:Webull ─  The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  05:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies for removing the CSD. I do not have any COI or I would have declared it before writing the article. — F ORMAL D UDE (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your concern with WP:SPI but would like you to please note that my edits and the edits of 36.103.228.91 are conflicting as I was attempting to restore what I (incorrectly) thought was appropriate content for the article that 36.103.228.91 (and others) had removed. In light of my missteps, I will cease further editing of this page until a consensus is reached. — F ORMAL D UDE (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Kindly contest the deletion
A humble request to the users who are interested to save this page from deletion by opting "Contest the Deletion" as suggested in the tag. Please do not remove the tag without contesting its. Thank you for your kind cooperation. -Hatchens (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because I have completely improved the content, and is well-sourced. -36.103.228.91 (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear 36.102.228.91, there have been three editors' views on this article. All three of us somehow or somewhat not agreeing with your edits or your logic. If you want or suggest, I can remove the CSD tag and WP:DRAFTIFY the article so that you (or whoever is interested) can build it up gradually and later submit it via the AfC review process. - Hatchens (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

So many inaccuracies in this article...please revise or at least don't stop me from revising
I have made numerous edits to this article to make it more accurate in the past few days, but well-intentioned editors keep undoing my edits. Full disclosure: I am a Webull insider and not trying to promote anything, but rather simply trying to remove inaccuracies and make the article accurate and useful for people that want to learn about Webull. For example, -the claim that Webull is owned by Fumi Technologies is not accurate, but it has been picked up by a number of lazy news sources that turn to Wikipedia for information. This erroneous claim references an old FINRA filing made by Webull Financial LLC (which is not even the subject of this article). Further, if you click on the referenced FINRA filing the word "Fumi" is nowhere to be found. That is because Webull Financial LLC (which again is not the subject of this article) is no longer under Fumi Technologies, and the current FINRA filing makes it clear that it is now under Webull Corporation. In other words, this FINRA filing says nothing about who owns Webull Corporation, but it is used as a reference anyway. -while it is true that Webull has received backing from Chinese PE funds, it has also received backing from a number of global PE funds. A simple Google search will show that this includes General Atlantic and Coatue, both of with are based in New York. Please also note that most PE funds don't disclose their portfolios. To only state that Webull is back by Chinese PE funds while failing to note that it also has non-PE backers is very misleading. -Webull's corporate website is "webullcorp.com". Webull.com is the website for its US users to open accounts, trade, etc, and doesn't provide any information about the company. webullcorp.com was established to provide information about the company. -Since this article was last updated, Webull has launched in Australia, Japan, South Africa, and the UK. A simple Google search will provide the articles you need to back this. You can also go to the local websites for each of these markets if you need further proof. -Webull no longer offers cryptocurrencies. In July of this year it spun-off its cryptocurrency trading into a separate platform called Webull Pay, which is outside of the Webull Corporation group. If you go to webullpay.com you will see this. So the statements that Webull Corporation offers cryptocurrency trading is no longer accurate. -Webull's headquarters is now in St. Petersburg, Florida. Last year it purchased a large building there and has declared that to be its global headquarters. There are no news articles about this because it is an internal matter, but I note that your current article doesn't cite any sources as to Webull being headquartered in NYC. -Webull launched a robo-advisory business this year. I think this is relevant not as a promotional matter, but only because the current article referencing being approved to offer robo-advisory trading in 2020, and failing to say when it was launched is incomplete. -The large reference to Xiaomi at the bottom of the page should be removed. Xiaomi's only connection to Webull is that it is a small passive investor in Webull without any power or control. There is no reason to especially call out Xiaomi. FatherOf5 (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * At the risk of WP:3RR, I will be reverting you yet again. It was not a WaPo article. In addition, Justia shows Hunan Fumi owning the trademark to the company. You can also see it in the Business Insider, Yahoo!, The Epoch Times, and even the audited financial reports filed with the SEC shows Hunan Fumi as the holding company. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand how trademarks within international organizations work, how journalists do "research" in the internet age, or how SEC filings work. But you were successful in getting me blocked from editing the Webull page further, which is unfortunate because false information will remain on Wikipedia, that false information will continue to be picked up by lazy journalists, and politicians will continue to rely on lazy journalists, with very real-world consequences for a company that started off with Chinese backing but is now owned by investors across the globe. I know you think you are acting in the interests of Wikipedia, but you are hurting it and others in the process. FatherOf5 (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it was not me who wound up getting you blocked. I never requested such. It was your actions that did so. There is a process for editing here on Wikipedia and the route you took is not the proper one. I am more than willing to assist you through the process as I have since the beginning if you are willing to have a calmer head and listen to the guidance. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)