Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First National Innovation Brokers


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

First National Innovation Brokers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional/advertising, non-notable. All references are either promotional (e.g. the first one, not from HuffPo but HuffPo Union of Bloggers) or complete fabrications, citing academic articles behind paywalls that contain no mention of the subject. Google search turns up no mentions other than this article, their own websites, and various ads. KarlM (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - promotional piece. Autarch (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - on checking WP:CSD, it breaches G11. Autarch (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an important company (share capital of over NZ$100,000,000) and it appears to be notable in its field for some innovative features (first Forex and gold trading firm to accept bitcoin and other electronic currencies). I don't have either access to some of the sources and, in this sense, I'd need a clarification from the nominator, whether he has access and he did not find the company mentioned there or he just surmised this. Yaratam (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yaratam, could you clarify your statement on why this is an important company? The "fact" you assert (share cap) appears to be sourced to a book published six years ago, even through the statement begins with "As of January 2012".  At first glance, most of the sources appear to be complete fabrications.  I'll drop a note for the article's creator, but it may be a good idea for you to take a deeper look before !voting. Frankly, the preliminary info I'm turning up is a little embarrassing.  Kuru   (talk)  17:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned, I do have access to all of the sources (the journals International Studies Quarterly and Financial Review), and none of the articles cited in support of these statements mention the company at all. The fact that no real mention of it comes up in an Internet search casts additional doubt on assertions that it's a significant company. Furthermore, the creator has a long history of creating solely promotional articles and IMO is acting in bad faith. KarlM (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The firm is noteworthy and controversial because of bitcoin.  Give the author a reasonable opportunity to clean up his references and make his case this week.  Today is Sunday and he may be offline.  There are Russian language references. DazzBand (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — DazzBand (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If a company based in New Zealand and doing business internationally doesn't have at least one English-language reference, that would seem to argue that it's non-notable even if it exists. KarlM (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yaratam the company's self declared single share holding is more likely fictitious, in that it is unlikely to be a paid up value. Also, it has no registered office in New Zealand. It only seems to exist on the internet. NealeFamily (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If it really does have a share capital of over NZ$100,0000,000 and was "the first firm to accept bitcoin and other electronic-currencies," then it may be worthy of a keep as long as it is sourced. Fake sources should be deleted immediately though. ~dee  ( talk? ) 13:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely unsourced "firm"; zero references could be found from reliable sources despite some serious astroturfing and seo.  Some of the forum discussions don't help build a positive image of this entity, and the fabricated references used here seem to support a less than honest attempt at creating more seo.  Random SPA's popping up to support it are curious.  Kuru   (talk)  02:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The authoritative official URL for this company is http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/3473593/detail That's it's companies' office registration. Note that it appears to be registered, managed and owned in different jurisdictions. If you google for the registered address / address for service you get hundreds of thousands of hits---because it'll be a company management company that manages thousands of companies. It is not 'based in New Zealand.' It does not appear to have a 'share capital' because it does not appear to be traded. It does, however, have 100000000 shares issued (to the same shareholder). If you notice any other dodgy-looking New Zealand companies Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand will be more than happy to help :) Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as SPAM based on above analysis. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is all real dodgy and SPAMish. I would like to have it speedily deleted but the inclusionists hovering around over there probably won't wear it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Factual article. The firm is a bona fide New Zealand limited liability company (#3473593) currently licensed as a registered financial service provider #154824 as per NZ government web site. No record found of Better Business Bureau or other watchdog actions.  The same corporate mailing address is utilized by numerous NZ firms that meet NZ compliance.   Being publicly traded is not an counter indication of dodginess, nor is a publicly traded firm ipso facto noteworthy. Pets.com was publicly traded. As of this writing, Facebook is not publicly traded, but will be floated soon.  Google was not traded until years after its noteworthiness.  As for forum discussions not building a positive image, this is a double-standard, as similar forum and blog posts that do build a positive image have been deleted as references herein.  Moreover, not only do negative posts not preclude notoriety, they may very well increase noteworthiness.  Both positive and negative posts demonstrate this firm's unique connections to the bitcoin community and that in itself is reason to let this article develop.  DazzBand (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Double !vote struck. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable company with its office in Hong Kong and a single share holder in the United Kingdom. Has no significance at this stage to New Zealand. Looks more like a shell company. NealeFamily (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Poorly sourced, nothing to establish notability. Mattlore (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2012 (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.