Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwinex


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Darwinex

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company, tagged for three years for lack of notability. All of the sources are either to the companies web site or press releases, or simple unselective directories, such as its listing with the UK Financial Conduct Authority. I can find no significant coverage myself.

The current version reflects a recent revert I made after it was turned into promotional copy by apparent COI editor DarwinexLabs, but editors may want to review that unreverted copy to determine whether they believe it does pass muster (I don't want my revert to be the basis of deletion). TJRC (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe Wait - I can try to improve the article as I go along, you can decide to delete if after a while if it's still not worthwhile keeping it here. Basically, I am trying to avoid killing a project just because it's been slow lately, we can give it a little bit breathing space : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: I am not proposing that the article be deleted because editing on it has been slow. I am proposing that it be deleted because there is nothing notable about this company that merits its inclusion in Wikipedia under the project's notability guidelines and in particular those for corporations. Slow editing would not be a proper basis for deletion. In fact, if the corporation were in fact notable, but the state of the article didn't reflect that, that, too, would be an invalid basis for deletion. It's not about the condition of the article; if that were the case, the solution is to bring the article into shape, not to delete it. It's about the lack of notability of the subject of the article, which cannot be corrected by any amount of editing. TJRC (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is a small company, I can try to find out notable developments, you can decide to delete if after a while it's still not notable. Basically, I am trying to avoid killing a small company just because it's been less notable lately, we can give it a little bit breathing space : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The "little bit of breathing space" was the two years it went without people fixing the notability issues. I think that's long enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's been a long time, but hey, i came across it and i am now trying to do something about it, how about we go a bit longer for our friends at Darwinex : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Good evening. Apologies for the apparent COI TJRC.. we were not at all aware that's what we'd end up doing! We were merely trying to correct information on this Wikipedia page since it was likely written by someone outside the organization without our knowledge nor consent, and was citing incorrect / out-of-date information. We are a FinTech Startup working hard every day to make the financial industry a more meritocratic and better place, empowering talented traders to compete with institutions on a level playing field. We have nothing but good intentions in any effort we make towards that goal. If you could kindly advise how we can correct this COI and not disappear from Wikipedia entirely, we'd be eternally grateful. Thank you for your consideration. -- DarwinexLabs (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The COI is not the basis of my putting it up for deletion; it is the lack of notability of the company. With respect to your COI, you should probably simply refrain from editing the article, and instead suggest edits on the talk page. Please see and follow WP:COI, where you have been directed on your talk page. TJRC (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hard delete As it currently is, the company seems like a run of the mill startup that is not notable for most of the reasons start ups aren't (P.S. Changed vote based on more research that makes me think this isn't worth a soft delete). --Adamant1 (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How about a soft keep, i have no idea if it'll be notable in future, but if we delete their wiki page, then the likelihood of their ideas working out goes down, and that's why i am spending this much time on them, i do think that their ideas are very noteworthy, you can see from my contribution history that i have subject matter expertise in this area : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If the company is notable then the page should not be deleted, but there is pretty much one path to demonstrating that: edit the page to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, so that it includes multiple independent reliable sources that give this company significant coverage. Having a Wikipedia page in the hopes that it will increase coverage of a subject to then make that subject notable doesn't quite make sense, because to have a page in the first place the subject already needs to be notable. It also gets pretty close to using Wikipedia as a way to advertise a company, which isn't permitted (see WP:NOTADVERTISING). There's also not much room for personal authority in discussions on whether or not something is notable. A good explanation is in rule 8 of WP:10SIMPLERULES. - Astrophobe  (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what i was planning to do, edit the page to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT, so that it includes multiple independent reliable sources that give this company significant coverage. Having a Wikipedia page allowed me to learn about the ideas the company is using and this would now feed back on me spending time on something notable. Wiki is full of pages and subjects which i find pretty trivial and not notable at all. But I don't go around raising discussions for their deletion. I assume good faith on all those who are closer to the subject to make that judgement call  --LSVTArmy (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This definitely is not an advertisement, but you have to understand power of wiki, people are getting their corona virus news from Wiki, so we all here at Wiki have some responsibility that we encourage great ideas even though they might have yet to receive some New York Times reporter's endorsement. There absolutely is scope for expertise on whether or not something is notable. I would not wade myself amongst corona virus article intricacy discussions, leave alone opining on deleting one of their pages. But, all the people opining here seem to be non-Finance, non-Investments, Non-Brokerage background trying to reach a conclusion based on their understanding only from the surface --LSVTArmy (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * First, Wikipedia isn't a news source. The only reason it has an article is because it's notable, but that's different then "newsyness." While lots of things might have New York times articles, they don't have Wikipedia articles because that's not the metric. That said, appeal to authority arguments are always extremely weak. Especially on an anonymous platform where you don't know who is or is involved in what. For all you know you any of us might have some experience in finance. It doesn't matter though since there is no expertise criteria for who can participate in something. Most of the time it would lead to "I'm the authority so I should get my way because X" bickering anyway if there was. So, we are not better not having it. Therefore, your free to wade into whatever Coronovirus discussions you want to. Just as anyone else is free to have an opinion on this article. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me re-phrase, Wiki is most def source of information. You probably don't know my expertise, but you know your expertise. Likewise, I wouldn't wade into areas like US Counties, because then i'll be taking up a lot of your time over my half baked arguments : ) I am well aware of the blindspots for Wiki Contributors and so I have absolutely no hope for getting my way just because I want it, all i can hope is some patience with the potential I can very well see here : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * LSVTArmy, it sounds like your argument boils down to, although this company is not currently notable, it is doing some interesting things and ought to get coverage that would make it notable; therefore we should treat it as notable. But that's not a valid argument. Wikipedia includes articles people and things that are notable, not people and things that we believe should be notable. (And, conversely, we have articles on people and things that arguably should not be notable, yet are notable nonetheless. Kardashians is too easy a target, so let me instead go to Richard Nanes for an example.) TJRC (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me re-phrase, this company is maybe notable, it definitely is trying to solve an obvious problem, i only found out about it because it's Wiki page was still up and so i learnt about it from there, i would assume some good faith here and give it little bit more time, and then you can do another round of afd, same with Richard, we can do another round of afd for him in future, may he rest in peace till then : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not implying bad faith on the part of you or any other editor. I'm pointing out why your approach is flawed. TJRC (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The world is a flawed place and I would like us to make it a better place, for u and me : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Comment : The argument for notability among English-language sources looks very weak. I can only find one in-depth English language article on this company, and some scattered entries among sketchier sources, so on the basis of English sources I would easily vote delete. However, including Spanish-language sources (as permitted under WP:GNG point 3), a superficial inspection to a non-Spanish speaker makes the picture suddenly completely bewildering. They get in-depth coverage time and time again from one source: There is one particular radio station that appears to be obsessed with this company, doing a 40 minute radio segment, a 30 minute radio segment, a 20 minute radio segment, a 35 minute radio segment, another 35 minute radio segment ... all just about this company. I can pretty much understand the literal meanings because I speak related languages, but I simply lack the cultural context to understand what is going on here. Is this a really amazing WP:RS rescue by this one radio station that happens to be the only independent reliable source that really thinks this company is worth covering in extreme detail? Is this probably paid coverage? Something in between? I would like to see comments from someone who understands how to interpret this. - Astrophobe  (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit: switched to Delete per -  Astrophobe  (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, the argument for notability is currently weak, they have been in existence since 2012 and not been able to achieve exponential growth which the company needs in order to maintain notability and not start to fade into oblivion. In fact, I am a hard core Finance guy and have accounts with all the major brokers and I hadn't heard of this broker myself till 2 days ago. So, yeah, they are not notable at all. But they are trying to solve the problem which i faced with all other brokers who i already have an account with. This caught my attention and now I am wasting all this time trying to help with their mission. But hey, like that Spanish Radio Station, my efforts might be in vain, but this is no different from what Lincoln faced. There was tremendous opposition to giving black people their rights. Hey, I am that black person, you give me some rights here and in hundred years, I'll produce a Mozart for you, just like the black people's Mozart, u like Michael Jackson don't u : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The Spanish radio coverage doesn't ultimately matter because an FM radio jockey is no more authoritative then a blogger IMO. That said, it would be interesting to know what their thing with it is. My guess is some kind of pay to play thing or the radio host has investments in the company and is preaching about it to make his stocks go up. Quite a lot blogs and other sources of financial "news" do the same thing. Even ones that might otherwise seem legitimate. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have barely done any editing related to companies so I'm happy to defer on this, but the reason that it really stuck out to me is that it reminded me of point 12 of WP:SINGER. There are situations in biographies of people where (if Capital Radio is what it looks like, a nationwide radio station) this sort of coverage would qualify the page for notability, but of course that's a different guideline and I don't really know what to make of this type of coverage in this case. Hence just commenting to make sure it's not totally overlooked. -  Astrophobe  (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * EDIT: please stop editing my comments, even if the edit seems minor. It isn't done, especially after I've already objected. Please read WP:TPO. -  Astrophobe  (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha, I was wondering where that * disappeared, i had to do it twice, haha, now i know you took it away, of course i know TPO, but god there are so many comments here, it's hard to keep track, i'll leave yours alone ; ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's so many comments because you flooded the AfD with irrelevant, off topic crap. Everyone knew what your opinion about it was after your first comment. The rest has been completely pointless noise. You keep going off about how we should cancel the AfD so you can improve the article, you could have done that a couple of times over by now if the company was actually notable instead of wasting your time with the useless commenting. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The more coverage that's brought up the better. Even if it might not qualify. I've tried argue a couple of times that a company's article should be kept based on the notability guidelines for events, but no one went for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The fact that radio jockey has gone to this length tells me that he is able to see the same purpose and potential that i am able to see so clearly. Of course his starting point was the fellow countrymen who founded this vision in a foreign country, just like my starting point from their competitors like eToro. It's definitely not money, I can guarantee you this, people who are this passionate are driven from the object itself, not the resulting financial pressure, absolutely not. To mitigate any potential conflict of interest, you are more than welcome to revert any changes i might make to the page, if it's not obvious to the reader, it has no place on Wiki : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Rather than worrying about whether Capital Radio Jockey coverage is notable or not, how about you and I see if these ideas themselves are worthy of taking a note, much like ideas of Hans P. Eugster, somebody clearly felt that they were noteworthy and made a wiki page for it, maybe his next door colleague was more noteworthy at the time, but those ideas couldn't stand the test of time and thus that poor fellow has got no wiki page : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hard to believe that this needs to be said: absolutely do not use other peoples COI disclosures to talk about their families in article for deletion discussions. Now I will disengage because there is nothing left to do here. - Astrophobe  (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because all of us have blindspots, we find it hard to appreciate of what we are unable to see, that's the reason I was trying to talk about subjects that you might find it easy to understand and appreciate, now i don't know you personally, so i have no idea of what you are able to understand, so i picked the first subject on your home page i could myself relate to, grandfather, we all have them and we all understand that topic and so i can now talk about something we both could understand : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll of course try to get more coverage, I might even pass on references of this fantastic attempt to the reporters myself. But that would take time, so patience is all i am asking for. If after some time, you are still not seeing enough notability, you are more than welcome to raise another round of afd : ) --LSVTArmy (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Struck comments from, a blocked sockpuppet. See Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurarjun/Archive for details. — Newslinger  talk   05:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Seeking more comments on the Spanish-language sources found by.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Newslinger  talk   05:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NCORP. I found this coverage of Darwinex, but it still fails WP:NCORP. I find the WP:CRYSTAL-like arguments of LSVTArmy untenable. userdude 05:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment regarding Spanish-language sources: Four of the five sourced provided by largely consist of Juan Colón, CEO of Darwinex, speaking about the company. Thus they fail the "independence" clause of being a reliable source. This leaves, which consists of Eriz Zárate, CEO of Zárate-Mateo Algorithmic Systems, speaking about his own company, Darwinex, and a partnership (or merger) between the two companies. This is also of questionable independence, but even assuming it is independent, I do not believe this is sufficient coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Also, the Wikidata page (Q66114095) says it was founded in 2013, suggesting it leans towards the radio jockey end of the spectrum. userdude 05:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC); edited 05:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, really good catches. So just one person doing a shocking number of interviews with the CEO for reasons I won't speculate about. - Astrophobe  (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The test is not merely for "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail NCORP, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:41, 23 March 2020 (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.