Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academy Of Financial Trading


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Academy Of Financial Trading

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In my opinion the topic of this article is not notable as the only 3rd party mentions I could find are this press release where it won a non-prestigious award and this news article where it is mentioned in one sentence. If I ran across this article on CSD, I would have deleted it under A7, but since time has passed since it was created, I'm listing it here. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 16:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 22.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 16:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thing, I truly appreciate your opinion on this. That being said, I also would like to contest this opinion, on the basis that there appears to be a rule that is not being applied to everybody. For example, we look at Online Trading Academy - a company that's template was followed in order to create this article, after doing a study of the companies competitors. This article had been allowed to exist for over 2 years with no complaints. Then I bring further attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Investment_companies. The vast majority of the entries found in this list have been sat on Wikipedia between 3-5 years, with no edits or notifications brought to them, even after admin inspection, yet these are all of a lesser quality as I'm sure you will agree. There are many examples I could happily bring to light. The fact of the matter is, I, the author of the Academy of Financial Trading wikipedia page, have no affiliation with the company, nor have I interacted with them. All information has been produced based off of the information provided on their website after completing a research paper on the rise of e-learning / distance learning stock exchange educators. As mentioned, I feel slightly penalized in this case as evidently it appears to be 'one rule for one, one rule for another'. IgniyteJames (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite multiple searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia, Guardian) I am not finding any reliable 3rd party sources. That leaves the question of whether the awards from "Global Banking & Finance Review" are sufficiently notable? I am not seeing evidence of that and in that context can only say that this enterprise fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (Regarding the comments above, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I would also add that, while looking for references for the present AfD, I did notice at least one Daily Mail article featuring the "Online Trading Academy", but nothing for "Academy Of Financial Trading".) AllyD (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete After looking into the "Global Banking & Finance Review" award, I can't see how it conveys notability. They don't give any specific criteria for the award, just puffery ("a wide range of criteria"). The nomination form just asks for a company name and category (you make up your own category and it doesn't ask for for a nomination reason or qualifications). The award page doesn't give any reasoning behind the award or companies that it beat in the category. ParacusForward (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete After spending a few days looking for notability, I cant really find any refernces other than a passing mention. As its a new company this may change in the future, however for the moment its a delete. Murry1975 (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2013 (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.