Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulltick


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulltick

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:COMPANY. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to failings of WP:COMPANY. Dalejenkins | 11:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure why it's being claimed not to satisfy WP:COMPANY, perhaps the lack of included references covering the company itself. So I added two, one from BusinessWeek and one from hedgeweek, which satisfy the guidelines:

"However, sufficient independent sources usually exist for such companies that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source)."


 * Bulltick is an international company with offices in many large cities, well over 100 employees, and is a member of various stock exchanges and is a registered securities dealer in multiple countries. The focus is on Latin America, and it's not a consumer-oriented company, so it's not a household name, but well-known in the financial world as can be seen by how frequently employees are quoted in the news, and certainly notable. Drawn Some (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't understand either why it is claimed not to satisfy WP:COMPANY, there is no advertising, it has plenty of secondary sources, it has plain language, and it's a company that is widely recognized in several countries around the world. Communicationsbcm (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC) — Communicationsbcm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - fails to show any evidence of notability, lacks significant independent coverage component. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Representatives of this company do seem to be quoted in the financial news media on a regular basis. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 06:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Drawn Some (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC) *Note Communicationsbcm has been blocked because his account has been used strictly for promotinal purposes--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I had added the necessary references, I'll put them here as well. I am puzzled why someone would still say it doesn't meet WP:CORP when the references  to determine that it does are now in the article.
 * company overview from BusinessWeek
 * hedgeweek article
 * response - because those do not add up to the requisite substantial coverage. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not find any of the arguments made above compelling in any way and I am hesitant to recommend one way or another. We need to address the question of sources in more depth, because I think we are talking past each other.  A google news archive search turns up 249 hits: .  However, many of these are press-releases and other sources that are not independent of the company.  I think we need to engage these sources in more depth before making hasty decisions.
 * For example, this source: appears to have detailed coverage.  However...is hedgeweek a reliable and independent source?  I don't know.  I see a number of quotes in reliable sources, of people in this company, especially their analysts, but I think that's not quite good enough.  Thoughts?  Cazort (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (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.