Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CWM FX


 * 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 speedy keep. No policy-based reason for deletion given. This discussion cannot and will not handle legal issues. Legal has the information, if they deem the article has to be deleted, they can do so (cf. WP:CSD).  So Why  07:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

CWM FX

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Owner of the CWM companies alleges that the company is in voluntary liquidation by Christopher Whiteoak an Insolvency pratitioner and a scammer is using the Wikipedia page to manipulate financial media and classic media .They are any fraud recorded in UK concerning CWM. 2017072310011785 S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Striking words not added bb me -- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep please. This is nonsense. I assume the nomination is procedural and made at the request of the person behind the OTRS ticket but the content of the article is well supported by numerous reliable sources. No valid reason for deletion given. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia has standards for what it keeps and what it deletes. The subject of this article meets Wikipedia's standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Company activity and events like being in liquidation are not factors which Wikipedia editors consider in determining whether Wikipedia features an article on a company. There is no valid reason presented for deleting this article so keep by default. If there is a scammer sharing false information then Wikipedia can address that, but by the edit history, it seems like someone wildly wanted to delete everything. If there is anything to say then comments can go to the article's talk page.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Update A representative of this company searched me out off wiki and directed me to delete the page. They say that they have no time for Wikipedia's discussion process and that the page is to be deleted immediately. They gave me court orders and said that they have legal reasons why this must be done. It is beyond my ability to address this person. I will direct them to legal@wikimedia.org and since discussion with them is beyond what volunteers can manage I recommend that others do the same.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I forwarded the OTRS ticket to legal.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - A policy-based rationale for deletion has not been established with this nomination. Perhaps the issues the nom alleged can be taken to another forum but deletion is not the answer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The right answer is to respect the ethic, ethic is every thing, I'm the owner of CWM FX since March 2015, I confirm during two years nobody took the time to write the right and legal information and to update CWM FX PAGE, Why?? and today I confirm I cancel the fake news of CWM, the information is simple CWM FX is under a UK Voluntary Liquidation process by Christopher Whiteoack an Insolvency Pratitioner, that's the legal and Judicial information, he is the UK Regulator indeed CWM FX is clean and they are any financial fraud recorded in the name of CWM, that's the true fact. Fake news make me many personal and business troubles. CWM FX has been acquired legally by an US Financial Firm based in Wall Street. End of the Story (All Legal document has been sent to the legal department of Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.239.127 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I would participate in this discussion but 's update makes me wary due to the off-wiki legal stuff. Sad really but I feel like participating here would be more trouble than it's worth.    Dr Strauss   talk   09:03, 1 August 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.