Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TMX Finance


 * 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   no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer's link shows quite a number of sources that appear to demonstrate notability, and there is no strong alternate position on deleting. However, it may be that only one of the 2 articles here are notable, so if, after the new sources are examined, only one of the 2 companies is notable, no prejudice on a rapid new deletion discussion on the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

TMX Finance

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm going back and forth on this one, but the whole thing is referenced to the company's own website or its SEC filings. I tried g-news searches and got some mentions in business publications, but they're all trivial and there's nothing beyond that. I can't bring myself to believe this company is notable. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

While we are here, I'll bundle

TitleMax is a subsidiary of TMX Finance, and the TitleMax article faces the same problems: sourcing to SEC publications. The remaining cites (along with all the ones I could find) cover Titlemax's bankruptcy, a WP:SINGLEEVENT Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 22:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. References in the main article are to SEC filings and to a routine notice of a bond issue.  All of these are in substance self-published sources originating with the business itself.  Any business involved in US securities markets in any way will have something similar, so they don't even establish minimal significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged  UK  21:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, some sources from Bloomberg and business publications here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:54, 16 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.