Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OANDA

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. No prejudice against creation of NPOV article with reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OANDA[edit]

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

No evidence of third party notability from reliable sources; Globe and Mail story appears to be a press release or similar paid coverage. Prod was disputed with no comment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandelbrot's book seems to be a valid source. Enivid (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the material in the article indicates nothing more than IT EXISTS. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cut to a minimum This company is notable as many companies use its published rates as forex benchmarks and it is good to have a reference of who they are. However, this article suffers from serious POV and sourcing issues which have not been resolved for a long time. Suggest it be reduced to what can be proven from a Dun & Bradstreet or similar search, and it can be rebuilt if someone with knowledge and sources comes along.Oblivy (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they are notable in the Forex space, but agree with Oblivy that it should be cut down to remove all the promotional and POV material. Sargdub (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article is too promotional for a passing mention in a book to overcome; should be deleted. Marginal notability at best; one of many such firms going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as-is. Can be recreated in the future by someone else without COI if it is really notable – however I object to all the single-purpose accounts making these kinds of articles for promotional purposes, despite our policy on what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for advertising. Citobun (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 5 January 2017 (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.