Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeleTrade 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. Sandstein 11:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TeleTrade Group[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Advertising, promotion. Deleted 3 times in Ru.wikipedia.org Кронас (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the topic is notable, but it's insane to me that it exists without mention of the raid,[1] embezzlement and fraud,[2] website shutdown,[3] and most recently suspension of operation.[4][5] Pegnawl (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

neutral keep a multinational corporation with 3,000 employees will generally be notable. Graywalls (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to be an adequate argument per WP:BIG: "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." Pegnawl (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This was a poor argument. I spent a few more minutes looking around, so thanks for commenting. An analyst from their firm was quoted in RT.com about a plane crash... and if RT is like the Wall Street Journal equivalent of Russia, then, being cited in such would be an indication of credibility, thus potential notability. ~~I'm going to say neutral~~, I initially casted keep, but switched to neutral because I don't really know the standing of RT. This is the article in which I am talking about link Graywalls (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would vote for Delete unless the citations brought into the discussion by User:Pegnawl were added, in which case I would switch to a Weak Keep. As the article currently stands, its advertising and non-notable; with the inclusion of the criminal investigation under WP:ILLCON/WP:NCRIME it's possible to establish notability (technically it would be the Russian Bank Crackdown that would be notable and deserving of an article, which is why I'm a Weak Keep). Userqio (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete As is this article needs to be deleted. There is no actual coverage, no 3rd party to establish his claim they have 3,000 employees, and one of the references he does provide is the company site. That being said if they can establish some facts in the article through coverage from reliable sources I might switch to a keep. I havent done anything but look at the page, so there may be coverage I am not seeing. Virtually any large brokerage will have significant financial coverage out there so this one might be a little tricky. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Graywalls. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC) ok then Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Hi Graywalls, Mosaicberry, having an employee provide a quote is not a criteria for notability of the firm they work for. Would you please review your !vote? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2 Hi Graywalls, you appear to have registered two !votes on this topic (yes, neutral could also be considered a !vote) - please fully strike one, thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC) My bad, didn't register two. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I would expect a large analyst firm to have coverage that meets the criteria as described in WP:NCORP but none appears to exist. The inclusion of a quotation by a comapany analyst does not meet the criteria. As such, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supposing the material from the references I've noted above was properly integrated into the existing entry, and unsourced material was removed, this entry would then be near 100% negative coverage, as no neutral coverage in RS seems to exist. Since operation has been suspended, there's no reason to believe more neutral information in RS will surface anytime soon, maybe ever. As mom used to say, if you can't write neutrally, you shouldn't write anything at all. Pegnawl (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DELREASON4 - it's seriously rare for me to suggest deletion for being excessively advertorial rather than advising cleanup per WP:ATD. However, the failures here are so huge that the current form doesn't meet requirements and is actually rather deceptive in its nature. No prejudice against recreation IFF it is sufficiently improved. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2019 (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.