Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BGC Partners
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Sources found... add them to article. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (warn) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BGC Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Already twice deleted for lack of sources. I've removed a reasonably legitimate CSD from this latest creation due to the discussion on the talk page, but rather than PROD it (one deletion was through expired PROD) although I do realise that AfD is not a call for sources or clean up, I'm going to let the community decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please also see correspondence on User talk:JoolsRun. None of the versions of the article so far have been referenced, with only linking being to the company site. The creator of the current version seems not to want to provide references despite two of us explaining that they are needed. One of the businesses referred to as being part of this group does not have that information in its Wikipedia article - in that, this article is ahead of the editing at Newmark Knight Frank and Knight Frank (both of which are poorly referenced). I presume this business is notable as it has a notable subsidiary - but that does not always follow as many notable companies belong to rather unnotable holding companies - but this isn't really made clear. Sponsoring an event isn't notable enough for an article, it merely means someone's got money. Peridon (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from creator. I'm even less inclined to look for sources now than I was when it was so rudely demanded of me a while ago just 5 minutes after creation, but I will repeat here, I would be amazed if a NASDAQ company with offices around the world that is sponsoring a major sports tournament like the Masters snooker, did not have the required coverage out there for an article here, certainly up to the WP:GNG standard. I will note that at no point does it look like anyone has even bothered to look for them though, which clearly violates WP:BEFORE. I had a look at the company specific WP:CORP guideline, and frankly it's gobbledygook to me. I am dismayed that it now appears that posting simple factual information is automatically considered promotion/advertising in Wikipedia, but whatever. Do what you want with it, I really don't care. I can't even get the Masters snooker tournament page into a state where it would be easy for readers to see who the hell the title sponsor is, and as we see here - there's probably no point looking for them under their own article either! Some encyclopoedia. It's ironic that the company seems to think that they are so well known that people will just know who they are from seeing their BGC logo on television. How little they know! JoolsRun (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We understand you frustration, but this article has been deleted twice before for lack of sources - our major policy; that it's promotional is a minor issue, but please understand that Wikipedia is not a B2B listing site either. Even if the article doesn't have a promotional tone, we do not volunteer our time here to provide free publicity for big budget corporations, and we resent the comments you have made about our editors and our perfectly clear guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are out there, they're bound to be, but you've pissed me off so much I'm not going to look for them myself. But your ideas about how this article in its created state is just a free b2b listing are laughable - sorry if you resent that, but they are. I volunteered my time to create this article because I wanted to know who BGC were, and to my mind, they are obviously notable. So the article was deleted twice before - so what? I was given 5 minutes to add references, and your request was not a polite enquiry, but that hostile aggressive suspicious notice taking up the whole page. Very nice. What's to say you lot didn't do just as bad a job the last two times? How many times do you think an actual city trader knowledgable about BGC would waste his time with this crap? This past history shows nothing except perhaps you're all way too paranoid, and WP:BEFORE is just a fantasy. You keep on like this, and nobody will ever write about companies for Wikipedia, notable or not, certainly not inexperienced editors. You're almost encouraging paid editting with this approach - who is going to put up with all this shite if they weren't being paid to spend the time getting it perfect first time? As we see, all you experienced editors seem content to delete first, think later. JoolsRun (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A relevant guideline here is WP:LISTED which concurs with JoolsRun that listed companies will most likely have sufficient independent coverage to confer notability - and reminds both the author to provide them and anyone proposing deletion to check for them. In this case [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] seem to confer a sufficient degree of notability for inclusion. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are out there, they're bound to be, but you've pissed me off so much I'm not going to look for them myself. But your ideas about how this article in its created state is just a free b2b listing are laughable - sorry if you resent that, but they are. I volunteered my time to create this article because I wanted to know who BGC were, and to my mind, they are obviously notable. So the article was deleted twice before - so what? I was given 5 minutes to add references, and your request was not a polite enquiry, but that hostile aggressive suspicious notice taking up the whole page. Very nice. What's to say you lot didn't do just as bad a job the last two times? How many times do you think an actual city trader knowledgable about BGC would waste his time with this crap? This past history shows nothing except perhaps you're all way too paranoid, and WP:BEFORE is just a fantasy. You keep on like this, and nobody will ever write about companies for Wikipedia, notable or not, certainly not inexperienced editors. You're almost encouraging paid editting with this approach - who is going to put up with all this shite if they weren't being paid to spend the time getting it perfect first time? As we see, all you experienced editors seem content to delete first, think later. JoolsRun (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We understand you frustration, but this article has been deleted twice before for lack of sources - our major policy; that it's promotional is a minor issue, but please understand that Wikipedia is not a B2B listing site either. Even if the article doesn't have a promotional tone, we do not volunteer our time here to provide free publicity for big budget corporations, and we resent the comments you have made about our editors and our perfectly clear guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per my response above. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources found by RichardOSmith, there are also further sources: REJournals.com, Forbes and Beacon Equity Research. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 21:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and redirect to Masters_(snooker) - Only seeing weak promo sources presented here - redirect to the only thing notable about it - this years sponsor of, or one of the sponsors of Masters (snooker) - Youreallycan 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in some sense or other. At worst as pointed out above, we gots a redirect location, which means there is simply no reason/need to deletearoonisky this article. Can I get an AMEN? --WR Reader (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Many references exist so the subject satisfies notability. AfD is not for cleanup. Night Ranger (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Very weak sources, including an unaudited blog by Ian Fraser a freelance journalist, whose own and reliabiity appears not to be asserted as WP:RS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is a well known company and as the original creator opined in quoted on Nasdaq. The article does have a place here and should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallen2006 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I came here to find out who "bgc" were after seeing their name as sponsor of the televised snooker tournament. I was pleased to find the information in the article. 86.176.208.199 (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of the sources found by RichardOSmith, the Telegraph story is a reliable source, and this Ian Fraser blog entry possibly is. (The others seem to be PR about their charitable activities.) The current article, by contrast, doesn't resemble a story that has been written from what sources say at all, and instead contains only the usual complete bollocks about being a global financial services company and goes on to tell you that they operate offices around the world. In any case, the current article text makes no case for inclusion, and the sources about their dodgy recruiting and buyout practices don't establish significant effects on history, technology, or culture, or establish why this vaguely described holding or investment company should be remembered until the end of time in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr, the so called "complete bollocks" this person refers to, comes from the company's own site, easily verifiable with a click or two. And in my school I was taught that the word "global" means 'around the globe', which they evidently are. And the NASDAQ listing, the 'complete bollocks', and the snooker sponsorship, represent a case for inclusion, that's surely a basic fact. As for whether it's significant enough or not for Wikipedia, or what the sources prove or don't as regards WP:ORIGIN, well, you can continue to argue amongst yourselves about that, I'm still staying out of it. JoolsRun (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2012 (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.