Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glaucus Research Group

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glaucus Research Group[edit]

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

Non-Notable company. Search on Google and Yahoo! only yields links to their own website which contain bias and bogus reports intended to benefit their own stock short sales and does not provide information in the interest of the public. YborCityJohn (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 2600:1006:B01D:A106:64E6:33E7:220D:7AAA (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is clearly spam. 108.188.71.6 (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability. 71.46.59.25 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three comments by three IPs? TimothyJosephWood 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia currently does not have any rules in place that stipulates that an unregistered user (i.e. IPV4 or IPV6 addresses) cannot vote in AfDs and if there were most likely the AfD page would have protection. It has been my experience working on Wikipedia to say that it is not unusual that they do so. I researched the three addresses in question, the first (the IPV6) is based in Kansas and the two IPV4 are based in Florida, the first in Hillsborough County and the second in Polk County. YborCityJohn (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear uses only for a listing hence WP:NOT applies alone. SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created the article and have no affiliation with the company. I personally agree that their tactics are deplorable, but I think they are notable given that their activities have been covered in multiple reputable business media sources (WSJ, Reuters, Bloomberg, etc. - see references in article). Their attack on Itochu was widely reported in Japanese business media. Sekicho (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And just to counter the allegations above, a Google search for "Glaucus Research" (at least for me) results in three different Bloomberg articles on the first page of results, followed by WSJ, Reuters, Japan Times and FT articles on the second page... Sekicho (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:PLUG. Also fails WP:GNG --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is sufficient consensus to delete plus we've reached the 7 days threshold for voting plus four extra days so could an Admin please close it and proceed with the next process of deleting the article. YborCityJohn (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2016 (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.