Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markets.com


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Markets.com

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT - lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Sourcing is poor: government databases and Forex websites, much of that trivial coverage such as personnel changes per WP:ORGTRIV. Overly promotional and unencyclopedic. AusLondonder (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, Websites,  and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Interviews, RP pieces and licensing documentation, don't help notability. I don't see anything outside of PR items in my searches. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news made up of funding, hiring news, PR.   scope_creep Talk  13:50, 6 April 2024 (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.