Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IC Markets (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

IC Markets
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per the very well reasoned argument for deletion of HighKing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG. Most articles are entirly about them and there are some peer reviewed site reviews. Check: 55brokers.com, forexbrokerlistings.com, bestctradebrokers.com,  publicfinanceinternational.org, thenextbitcoin.net, financialcommission.org, financemagnates.com and more. They seem to be a major Australian stock broker. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Not exactly non-notable and has been featured in Australian and international news, like the Sydney Morning Herald (I found on Google) and Reuters. Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news shows 24 pages of results on them, some press releases and most mentions, but there are several Reuters articles and many industry publication covering them. Peter303x (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with the Google news search comment above. ABC Money, Reuters, etc. - there are reliable sources of news on this one. Star7924 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no doubt the company exists and even mentioned in newpapers, but that doesn't mean the company is "notable". !voters above claim that it meets WP:GNG - but as per WP:SNG, NCORP guidelines set the criteria for references and these are examined fairly strictly. Looking at the references posted above, a fair few of them are very obscure websites and others are broker "referral" sites - these are not "independent", they exist simply to push people towards certain brokers and collect a referral fee. For example, 55brokers uses the exact same descriptions as many other websites such as mytopbroker.com (which although no longer exists you can still see the descriptions here and here), thatreallyworked.com review is practically identical as is trade-leader.com, forexsuggest.com, dailybluepips.com and many many more. The use of the exact same descriptions and text means that the content is being provided by the company - its their form of marketing. Also, check out the company's *own* description and you can see that it says the same stuff too. Another referral site listed above is foxbrokerlisting. BestcTraderBrokers focuses on the community of brokers and traders that use the multi-award-winning cTrader platform on a daily basis - so designed to promote those brokers, not independent, fails ORGIND. TheNextBitcoin.net is also not "independent" and even carries a disclaimer here, fails ORGIND. This leaves us with PublicFinanceInternational which looks good, has no disclaimers and claims to have done all the research, but has a referral system in place. Big red flag though is that the founder, Ziga Breznik, appears to also promote himself as an SEO expert and also promotes First Page Elite which attempts to convince you to sign up for his video on how to make $$$$ selling on Amazon. There's more online if you look. Hard to treat this as a credible source, fails WP:RS. The remaining references are this announcement fromm the Financial Commission which offers no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH; this mention in Finance Magnates also has no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH; Two articles in SMH and one in Reuters which mention the company but they're either talking about an event involving the company or they're fleeting mentions-in-passing, none though which meets CORPDEPTH criteria. I've searched and the majority of stuff is PR or referral sites with some newspaper mentions-in-passing or an article talking about how some brokers complained about false margin calls - none of which meets NCORP criteria.  HighKing++ 21:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I have updated the article with some info and two new links from The Australian, which is a huge publication here in Australia. Here are the two article links: 1 and 2. These are good in-depth articles. You will also see that the article states that the company is the 60th largest tax payer in Australia and the CEO is the 69th richest person in Australia. Mvonabo (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the new sources from The Australian, I re-emphasize my Keep vote. Regarding the issues that HighKing brought up, your concern that all these sites may not be credible is understandable, given your arguments. However, none are listed as a bad source here Reliable Sources. So we can't assume they are all bad. Sites having Affiliate Links are not necessarily bad. It is just one way of generating income, besides banner ads. Many credible sites use Affiliate links. In addition, some guidelines for notability state that having peer reviewed reviews is good to have. All these sites are industry sites that have reviewed them positively, so its a good thing that they have so much coverage from industry sites and it shows their notability. If they were unknown, then they would not have so much coverage. Also, suggesting that the company paid for these or submitted bios, is possible, but it's more likely that the company bio was copied from their site or other sites when these sites did independent reviews. Finally, I could not find any evidence that their founder is an SEO guy by the name of " Ziga Breznik," the article states that their founder's name is " Andrew Budzinski." Lesliechin1 (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.