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. Source analysis is compelling Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinkmarkets[edit]

Thinkmarkets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14. Generic. scope_creep^Talk 07:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - appears to have received significant coverage by independent sources, which meets GNG (there is an Australian Financial Review article and some other independent coverage). I don't agree this is an advertisement either - the real question is whether it is notable. Deus et lex (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Doesn't look promotional. Even if it does, can be fixed. The topic has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and thus passes WP:GNG.Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I never said it was promotional.I'll go through the references later today to determine if this very small private is truly notable instead of being one of many thousands and hundreds of brokerage firms in existence. scope_creep^Talk 15:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets look at the references

* [1] ThinkMarkets UK revenue for 2017 came in at £3.79 million (USD $5 million), versus £3.82 million in 2016. Net Profit was £189,000, up from £125,000. Client Assets at year end were £3.9 million, up slightly from £3.8 million as at the end of 2016. Dependent source. Fails WP:SIRS

* [2] ThinkMarkets Taps Jenner Partner f employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders (see above for #No inherited notability), Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

* [3] Routine announcement.Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

* [4] Routine announcement of IPO that never arrived. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

* [5] FinanceFeeds speaks in detail to CEO Nauman Anees Fails WP:ORGIND

* [6] Paywall

* [7] The CEO and co-founder of ThinkMarkets, Nauman Anees, spoke exclusively with Finance Magnates on the launch Interview Fails WP:ORGIND

* [8] Paywall, but IPO talk

* [9] Interview. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Not a single reference in the first block are decent. They all fail WP:NCORP. The award is non-notable. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 13:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue NCORP is not met if you want but the other two arguments are untrue. In any case, this does meet GNG as set out above - the AFR paywalled article has a significant section about the company and its IPO. And the fact that the interview is exclusive does not make it an unreliable source. None of these articles are advertisements. Deus et lex (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They have been talking doing an IPO for fully three years and one reference doesn't make an article. So it is still a small private company article that fails WP:NCORP. Also it might noticing per WP:N that consensus is now that CNG does not apply in these instances of company articles, it is WP:NCORP only. It one company of this types of thousands. It is entirely generic. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of your arguments are arguments for deletion, the IPO coverage shows notability whether you like it or not, and "generic" is not a reason for deletion. This passes GNG. Deus et lex (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again GNG doesn't apply to company articles, it is WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where on the GNG page does it say that? Deus et lex (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the WP:N. There is discussion the last couple of weeks. Worth reading up. scope_creep^Talk 01:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion doesn't mean that the policy has changed, where is there a specific exception to GNG about companies on the page (I'm genuinely asking as I can't see it)? Deus et lex (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep A notable brokerage company in London having reliable references.Kalekar M (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC) SOCK. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA who has made very few edit to Wikipedia, 17 in fact. scope_creep^Talk 09:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  I did a google news search and there are more news about this company and some passing mentions. Specifically, they have CNBC mention, Reuters,  and Market Watch mention, Another source here is in depth coverage.  There are a few more such as poundsterlinglive.com, themarketherarld, etc. Most are not in depth but just being in the news with lot's of passing mentions are also good to show notability, specifically these are Analyst quotations, so it shows that the company is trusted by peers and media. Peter303x (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:SPA. These are passing mentions and are the poorest sources I've ever seen. scope_creep^Talk 08:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has a history of posting defending comments and discrediting editors that vote against his nominations. Some of his SPA accusations look legit, but please check my edit history. I have been editor since 2013 and started doing AFD votes in 2018. In another thread he accused me that I am SPA because I only do AFD votes. This is not true. I have done edits to hundreds of pages and subjects. As far as this particular page, I agree that some sources are passing mention, but one of the sources I provided was a in depth coverage and there are other in debt coverage as well. Just place your vote and move on. No point accusing others that go against you and violating WP:HAR.Peter303x (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter303x: In his defense, I always raise an eyebrow too when voters on AfD don't have a user page or have a talk page with two entries. It seems very suspicious. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 05:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.