Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IC Markets (4th nomination) - Wikipedia

Article Images

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

I can't see that the article passes WP:NCORP. Almost all of the available sources seem to be paid PR. Those that aren't paid PR lack WP:SIGCOV. In keeping with almost all the sources being paid PR, the article is heavily promotional. I don't see that anything has changed since the last deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 12:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Pinging @LibStar, @Cabrils and @HighKing as editors involved in the last discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it could do with more references, but is a notable company within this industry and should be updated not deleted. Sargdub (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of mainstream media coverage:

Vgbyp (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first SMH article is mostly quoting or attributing statements to IC. This is not WP:SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" as required by WP:NCORP.

The second SMH article mentions them in passing three times. There is no SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth".

I can't access The Australian article, because it's behind a paywall. No comment there.

The Knews article is about IC Markets (EU) Ltd which is registered in Cyprus, so not sure it is completely relevant to this article as this is about an Australian entity. That aside this isn't really SIGCIV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth".

The ABC article looks fine. I'm not seeing enough here, but then I can't see the Australian article. TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The news about the Cypriot entity is relevant as the current article also provides information about the operations outside Australia. This probably has to be rewritten to clarify the connections between such entities though. Vgbyp (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is of any relevance, there's no SIGCOV "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth" in that article. TarnishedPath^talk 12:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per @TarnishedPath, none of @Vgbyp's suggested articles actually meet WP:SIGCOV. I will try to have a deeper look but struggled to find anything on my first WP:BEFORE. Cabrils (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of the articles suggested by me (except for the Sock puppets and Lifeline ads: Welcome to the wild world of copy trading by SMH) meet WP:SIGCOV. The subject doesn't necessarily need to be the source's main topic if it's covered directly and in detail, which is the case for the four news articles from my list. Vgbyp (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question we need to consider is whether they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, not whether you think they are SIGCOV compliant. We require in-depth WP:NCORP "Independent Content" WP:ORGIND *about* the *company*. The "Fake Margin Calls" articles has no in-depth information about the company other than generic information such as where there HQ is located. Repeating what the company told its customers, quotes, etc, is not "Independent Content". The article about the company getting fined is based on a press release for a total of 7 sentences, none of which provide any in-depth information. The first source about the class action simply regurgitates court documents and is not "Independent Content" and the other source is also not Independent Content as it relies on commentary from the lawfirm filing the case. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone with TWL bundle access, the article in The Australian is available via ProQuest (2912082870), among other means. I will reserve comment on the rest of the issue to a later date. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031, thanks for that. Given what is covered in that article I don't see that it adds to the notability of the company taking into the requirements of WP:NCORP. Simply that the company be addressed directly and in-depth by independent sources. A lot of the article is quotes from either the company or from lawyers investigating initiating a class action against the company (i.e., not independent). What is left over is not the company being addressed directly and in-depth. TarnishedPath^talk 03:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. TarnishedPath has provided an analsys of the sourcing above, none of which meets GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the coverage reviewed seem too routine to contribute to NCORP. I also place lower weight on discussing alleged illegal conduct on the same basis. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Gheus, @Sargdub, and @Mimi Ho Kora, who often edit Forex-related articles, for potential input on this AfD discussion. Vgbyp (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, notability is very weak. I did some searches in Australian newspapers and found some coverage but it is mostly about its founder Andrew Budzinski (who appear to be notable: [1], [2], [3]). Given the history of promotion by IC Markets on Wikipedia, I'd support a redirect to Andrew Budzinski (if someone works on it), otherwise a weak delete. Gheus (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gheus, I've just created a stub so I'll support a redirect to Andrew Budzinski. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, this solves the problem. IC Markets is WP:TOOSOON but can become notable in near future. Gheus (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Budzinski was borderline but I have no objections to a redirect now that the target exists. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]