Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knightsbridge Foreign Exchange


 * 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  12:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Knightsbridge Foreign Exchange

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No demonstration of notability. This article is advertising as demonstrated by the references, which do not cover this as a subject, but are passing mentions, opinions by the co-founder on general foreign exchange topics, and one line mentions in a couple of lists. In the "Profit 500" (see references) it is listed at 167 - hardly notable. Previously tagged for hotability by User DGG and removed by article creator. Tagged again for notability by User Hzh ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 06:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete promotional article for non-notable company. Mccapra (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Being listed in the Profit 500 at any position ought to be notable.  Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I disagree because being listed in the Profit 500 is merely passing mention. There is nothing in the notability criteria for GNG or Organizations that says garnering a rank in the "Profit 500" indicates notability. Nor should it be the only factor that indicates notability. However, if this company were ranked number 1 by a few lists such as that, then this might be one indicator for notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, an IP editor has added some more content and sources, but ultimately I don't think this quite meets WP:ORGCRITE. signed,Rosguill talk 23:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The language and wording all can be fixed and are not relevant to notability. Citations can be added, better sources can be found, etc. The subject is notable enough, coverage is more than an occasional passing mention, it is relatively high (in the top 50% of) the Profit 500. The text just needs some wikicleanup, not deletion.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment if better sources can be found then please do so. Making such an assertion does not mean sources demonstrating notability exist. I do not agree the ranking of this company, at 167, is enough do be an indicator of notability. Also, it is questionable as to whether or not the "Profit 500" should be used as a point of reference. It does not seem to be well known or established like the "Fortune 500" and the "S&P 500". Being ranked on those two indexes probably means something. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.