Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OneChicago, LLC

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. Shell ^babelfish 17:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OneChicago, LLC[edit]

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

No evidence that the company meets the notability criteria, only references provided are primary sources and there doesn't appear to be significant coverage available. Shell ^babelfish 13:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the two Single-stock futures markets that began trading in the United States 2002[1], and since 2004[2] the only one that still exists. Covered in hundreds of news articles[3], more than 100 hits at Google Books, more than 100 hits at Google Scholar[4]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with those hits is the actual mentions. Short of Chicago papers which discuss mundane details (staffing changes etc) and PRNewsWire, I wasn't able to find anything that did much more than mention the company in passing. Same problem with the books. There are a lot of them though, so if I missed something significant that could be used to fix the article, could you point that one(s) out? I'll be happy to update the article. Shell ^babelfish 21:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the coverage is behind pay walls, but how about, for example, this 2006 article from Forbes? [5]--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh - paywalls are a problem. That's at least a start, hopefully someone with easy library access can find a few more. Since that invalidates my concerns, I'll take down the AfD notice. Shell ^babelfish

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (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.