Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FXCM


 * 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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

FXCM

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY WP:SPAM. Was speedied prod deleted one as spam. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sure about the spam, but it feels a little promotional.  Just sounds like some stock broker company. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I'm not a finance guy but I find plenty of potentially relevant google hits, and I don't have the expertise to determine their significance. The article isn't obviously spam (certainly you wouldn't expect spam to talk about entanglement in bankruptcy proceedings) and it makes an assertion of notability.  It's poorly sourced but that's not necessarily an AfD issue. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability is certainly an issue. There are occasionally quotes in major sources, that I have added to keep a balanced perspective in the article, e.g. The New York Times quoted Marc Prosser, Chief Marketing Officer at FXCM saying "Don't just call it investing - this is speculation, and people should only be putting up risk capital they can afford to lose.", and in the Wall Street Journal "Even people running the trading shops warn clients against trying to time the market. 'If 15% of day traders are profitable,' says Drew Niv, chief executive of FXCM, 'I'd be surprised.' "
 * But these always get deleted, which makes the spam issue even more prominent. Smallbones (talk) 13:32, 22 October 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.