Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otc clearing


 * 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. Consensus is clean-up. (non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 11:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Otc clearing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

unsalvageable, unreferenced FAQ created by clear spam account. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources I found with a quick Google search:
 * Reuters article "Fed: central OTC clearing would curb market risk"
 * Bloomberg article "Asia OTC Clearing Efforts May Stall, Euroclear Says (Update1)"
 * Reuters article "Don't impose OTC clearing on industry: E.ON"
 * Risk magazine article "Bundle in the jungle: Cut-price OTC clearing threatens competition"
 * tradeweb.com article "OTC Clearing Part 10: A Corporate Treasurer's Nightmare"
 * thetradenews.com article "OTC clearing presents risk shift, not mitigation" might be non-neutral
 * "Centralized clearing for over-the-counter derivatives" Journal of Financial Economic Policy article
 * Pirrong, Craig. The economics of central clearing: theory and practice. International Swaps and Derivatives Association, 2011
 * Morrison, Joanne. "The Operational Challenges of OTC Clearing." Futures Industry (2010): 27-30
 * Except for possibly sources 6 and 8, these all seem to be secondary sources and are in depth about the subject. Reuters, Bloomberg and Risk magazine are reliable publishers; I expect that the Journal of Financial Economic Policy is, too. thetradenews.com looks legit, but I haven't heard of it. The existence of multiple reliable secondary sources indicates that this topic is notable. I agree that the article needs a lot of work to convert to an encyclopedic tone and structure. But these problems are surmountable (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details) and AfD is not for cleanup (see WP:NOTFORCLEANUP for details), so this article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't understand the accusation of spamming. Does the creator have deleted edits? Because his User Contributions relate only to this article: which (while it may have other failings) doesn't read as promotional and in which (so far as I can tell) Comunytek is never mentioned. 79.123.57.130 (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comment We do have an article Over-the-counter (finance), which might be a suitable merge or redirect target for this. 79.123.57.130 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article needs a proper writing to fit an encyclopedic article, the article looks like a manual. If this article is not re-written then it should be merged/redirected into a suitable article. Eduemoni↑talk↓  02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stub and provisionally keep. Most of the current text is unusable; unreferenced and written in a how to style.  I also suspect a copyright violation, mostly because this doesn't read like it was written for Wikipedia.  But the subject seems a real one that could support an article.  If it proves to be a copyright violation, then delete it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up. May need to be stubified to remove unsourced, potential original research. Reliable sources are inherently present about the topic; this article simply needs to be rewritten into an encyclopedic tone. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly needs clean-up.  At the same time, clearly has coverage to meet GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2013 (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.