Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Hat Trading Limited


 * 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. Maybe be recreated without prejudice when verifiable sources are available. JodyBtalk 01:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Top Hat Trading Limited

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is possible that the firm is large enough to be notable, but I can not see the references, and the page numbers listed make it appear they are mere notices. Its website is inaccessible without registration, & I am not about to register at an investment firm's site that I do not know about.  DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not being asked to register before seeing their home page http://toptrading.co.uk/about-us/ or the other company refs. No comment on whether the company itself is notable since I don't have access to the secondary sources, but there is very little about on Google. Meters (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please Consider this correspondence to constitute a formal appeal against the deletion of article "Top Hat Trading Limited" for unfounded reasons.

I would like to challenge the decision to deletion of article "Top Hat Trading Limited" by DGG, which was notified to me yesterday but DGG keep want proceed with deletion of page without reasons to do that. This is because:


 * The company is large enough to be notable
 * The article have enough sources and meet the criteria CSD A7, DGG already try delete the article based on CSD A7 criteria what were unfair.
 * Website of company have 6 years of existence, was registered in 2009
 * I take some information of company website, and any client are unable to register to website, because the registration need be made in person on Top Hat Trading Offices, and website offer a Client Portal Login to clients follow their investment.
 * The reason appointed by DGG above don't make any sense in this case because only client with agreement with company can have access to client portal, what mean that company process with all legal requirements and a client don't have a problem to register at an investment firm's without know about them, because they simple can't register, first need go to Top Hat Trading offices and signed a agreement.

I look forward to a response where we can hopefully resolve the situation ASAP, avoiding the need for deletion of article.Johnf1982 (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not qualifying for an A7 Speedy just means that the article appears to make a credible claim of notability. It does not mean that the subject of the article is actually notable. Despite passing A7 it may still be deleted for lack of notability, or on any other applicable grounds. Meters (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes Meters you are right. But in this case, I don't see enough reasons to proceed with deletion of article. I think that article is notable enough to keep online, and the UK magazines articles talking about company is a strong source for Wikipedia.Johnf1982 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, it's policy that we can use references that require registration--I am just saying why I have not looked at it. And it also is policy that we can not use external links that require registration, per WP:EL.  DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * DGG seems that you don't are looking correctly to references. Any link require registration to see, Top Hat Trading official website are accessible without any type of registration, also like I said before is impossible register online. All other references links, open and information are accessible without any type of registration. Johnf1982 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Out of the first four cites, two are evidently written by the company (use of 'we'), one is a map, and the fourth is a government registration database page with bare numbers, name, and location. Still working on the last three of seven, but this article definitely fails to lead with its strong suit. — Neonorange (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment All three of the financial magazines used as the last 3 refs are searchable, but I have not had any hits for Top Hat Trading or Nicholas Clark. Meters (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment:All information on article has available on UK magazines, that was where I took almost all the information. So I think that articles on 3 UK Financial Magazines is a strong source to write the article. Johnf1982 (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I had hoped the comment about the quality of the first four cites in the article might lead to some movement. As for the last three, at least two editors can not find the contents you cite in the three publications. If you can give us some help finding the articles, then perhaps we can move forward. I have tried to find other sources. — Neonorange (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The obvious grammar errors in the titles of the supposed refs are rather suspicious. Meters (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Grammar errors in the titles of the supposed refs? Where are you see grammar error on refs? I don't see any grammar error. Please be specific. Also the articles has been published in the UK magazines, paper version. Johnf1982 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, let us just step back a bit. There is no rush to close this discussion. There is no need to push so hard. If the firm is notable in the Wikipedia sense (or at least the English Wikipedia sense), eventually there will be an article. It is, of course, not necessary that the articles be online, but it would sure be a help to see a quote or two from those articles.; not so much a matter of trust, at all, but merely being able to find something to follow-up. — Neonorange (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neonorange in my opinion article deserve be published on WP because follow the WP criteria and I don't see good reasons for article be deleted. The sources and information about company not is the best for a solid article, but I think that is enough. If community think that article need be deleted, no problem at all. About magazines, I can't uploud them on WP because copyrights... What I can do is take a picture of articles and send to you. Johnf1982 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither "The Investments of Future?" or "Interview to Nicholas Clark" are titles that would be used by an English journalist. We're not asking you to send us copies of the articles, but since the searchable indices for the 3 refs are not showing hits for the titles (or Top Hat or Nicholas Clark) perhaps you could provide the search parameters required to find these articles, or some of the missing information (the names of the article authors, and the exact date of the August What Investment issue would be a good start). Note that as far as I can tell MoneyWeek published on 23 May, 2014 (not 22 May, 2014), Meters (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * *MoneyWeek magazine was in 23 May yes, you are correct was my mistake written on references the date of article and I will update with correct information. About ""What Investment"" is a Monthly magazine so don't have a exact date, is only month and year like I describe in references. Titles of magazines is a normal titles for a financial and investment magazines, I don't understand why you "Meters" are always doubt about veracity of references.Johnf1982 (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't verify the existence of the references in question even though the indices are searchable and I should be able to find them. That suggests that there may be a problem with the refs. The date of one is wrong, two titles have unlikely grammar errors (which are similar to quirks of your writing style), and you still have not been able to show us how to find these articles in the indices. I have not suggested deleting this article, yet, but I'm not going to wait much longer. Meters (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Other than their own website and related social media, and various business directories, they seem to have made no imprint whatsoever in the searchable Internet. I have also failed to corroborate article's print citations, which in any event would be too thin to demonstrate notability on their own, and they are very much on their own. I would also like to see better independent verification from reliable sources that they are what they claim to be. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2015 (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.