Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firstpex


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstpex

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Proposed deletion per WP:CORP of non-notable trading platform founded less than a year ago with limited third party coverage, primarily brief or incidental. Article has limited content and appears to be a vehicle for an editor with WP:NPOV issues to use for purposes of WP:ADVERT. This is one of several non-notable trading platforms established in recent years |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 23:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has issues, but WP:GNG failure doesn't appear to be one of them. Some of the links in its "External links" section are iffy (the Bloomberg link, for example, looks like a straight press release), but some of the others, e.g. this Reuters piece, or this Independent piece, or this brief Institutional Investor article, which links to this Reuters piece, seem to constitute reasonably in-depth third-party coverage.  Ammodramus (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are a couple of pieces all in a very short period of time that are basically a regurgitation of the company's press release / promotional material. This is not sufficient to establish the company as notable.  This is minor / incidental coverage of the company. Having some exposure to this industry there is a big difference from the more established players trying to get some attention. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 05:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll yield to User:Urbanrenewal, who appears to have done a lot of work on business-related articles and is probably much more conversant with consensus on notability in that area. I'll note, however, that the two Reuters articles linked in my earlier comment are separated by some four months; would this affect his comment re. "a very short period of time"?  (The second Reuters piece wasn't cited in the article at issue; one of the pieces cited in the article linked to it.)  Ammodramus (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 08:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Two reliable sources that are comprised of significant coverage; topic passes WP:GNG:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I tend to agree with Northamerica1000 here; the two pieces in Reuters look to be sufficient for a pass of WP:GNG. Open to reviewing my !vote if they can be shown to have derived solely from press releases, but I've been unable to find evidence of that myself. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am surprised that there would be support to keep a 150-word stub article about an insignificant company. I work in this general space and am confident that this company does not meet thresholds for inclusion.  This article is an exercise in self-promotion.  |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 00:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * however, we judge  not by opinion, but evidence.  DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 3 February 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.