Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary (2nd nomination)

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 Speedy Keep. General consensus is that this was too soon, and there appears to be a general consensus regarding the existence of notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banc De Binary[edit]

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

Despite having 59 citations, I cannot find a single one in the current article that is actually acceptable. There are about a half-dozen primary sources from the SEC, citations to its Terms of Use, primary sources for promotional information about its awards (see WP:ORGAWARDS), and junk sources to describe its products. Investopedia is cited a few times.

Doing my own searches, I mostly only found short blurbs, press releases, and articles about the SEC and other US authorities prohibiting Banc De Binary from operating in the US without registering as a broker. (a short article on "SEC vs Banc De Binary" may be possible), but practically speaking there is nothing worth salvaging in the current article and any editor that choses to cover it would be better off starting from scratch. CorporateM (Talk) 23:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Previous AfD closed on 21 May 2014. This is too soon. Unscintillating (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I see an article in the WSJ; I also see some in the Daily Mail-- I know we do not rely on it for BLP, but is its financial reporting considered responsible? DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reasons stated in the recent AfD debate, where a swarm of SPAs tried to delete the article to conceal all the "bad news" about the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, some of the _dozens_ of cites are not useful to demonstrate notability, but some are. Sources from the SEC are not "primary"--this is not an article about the SEC. In addition to the SEC, I see cites from the Financial Mirror, The Independent, the The Wall Street Journal, etc. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're talking about numbers, then such sources are primary, and to say otherwise is to misunderstand "primary" (or "secondary"). Drmies (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobbes Goodyear. There are reliable sources in there. I can also see the Daily Mail. BethNaught (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, User:BethNaught, see above. And which ones are reliable? Not the Daily Mail, surely--we shouldn't cite gossip tabloid to make a case for a company's notability by our standards. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep We just had an AfD on this article two weeks ago. Enough already. John Nagle (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When this article was initially created, it was puffery and nominated for deletion. At the time, the article creator said as follows: "I created this article as well as improving the article about the founder of the company. I believe the company to be notable as it is the only binary option platform that is regulated. In addition, it has won the World Finance 100 Award and was recognized as the Best Trading Platform by World Finance. There are additional references about the company on the founder's article as well (MSN.com Arabia, World Finance, and the Financial Times). Thank you for the consideration given." Sounds good enough for me. Coretheapple (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The Independent is a blurb in which Banc is quoted/mentioned, The Wall Street Journal is about the lawsuit from SEC regulators (the lawsuit could warrant its own article), The Dail Mail looks like an op-ed, but I'm not sure. I don't actually see a Financial Times, MSN or World Finance sources in the article, so I don't know what sources are being referred to there. The awards do not remotely make them notable. Bad COI behavior is not a rationale for keeping the article. I see no evidence that the company (rather than the lawsuit we could start an article on) meets WP:CORP or that if it did, the current article would be worth keeping rather than starting from scratch. CorporateM (Talk) 14:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The company initiated this article in furtherance of its corporate purposes, which according to the U.S. government are apparently to separate investors from their money. It unleashed an army of sockpuppets in furtherance of that goal, and recently offered a five-figure sum to ensure that Wikipedia would continue to be part of its marketing plan. In a situation like this, I think that, for the benefit of the public, we need to bend over backward to keep this article and source it correctly. Primary sources are not prohibited, and may be used when they don't require interpretation, as is the case here. Corporations are not people, and this is an excellent example of why they should not be treated as such in Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The company apparently wanted to delete this article because of the negative publicity it gets from it. The article from over a year ago, was a totally different story. Dream Focus 22:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are so right! And there's a reason for the article being negative publicity, which reason I am trying to assemble at talk. Sure, I assisted in getting it frozen, but there is a strong inertia against even defining what company is the subject of the article when the article relies on an outdated CFTC source that later self-corrected. That is, if edits attempting to properly disambiguate BDB Ltd from BDB Svcs Ltd can't even be countenanced, the entrenchment against this subject is deep indeed. You seem like the sort of person who might have suggestions useful for me at article talk or user talk. I'd appreciate it. (It's true, I have received an email from BDB before, but I don't want to be accused of COI.) Okteriel (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This was found to be a Keep on May 21, 2014. Notability is not temporary and community standards have not changed in the last two weeks. Allowing renominations such as this would disrupt the AfD process. Carrite (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Okteriel (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just waiting around for the snowball. Okteriel (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eight people said keep last time, this article clearing meeting the WP:GNG then and now. The only people trying to delete it were single purpose accounts, some of which proven to be connected to the company. There was no possible reason to start up this AFD again. Dream Focus 22:02, 6 June 2014 (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.