Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HYCM

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HYCM

HYCM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No real demonstration of notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Updated the article with more reliable sources from Forbes, BusinessWire, and Finance Magnates as suggested above. NoMoreHate (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG have enough coverage and is sourced well Chrisswill (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing here utterly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND, and is very run-of-the-mill. The Forbes sourcing is from a contributor: i.e. someone who is not on their editorial staff and uses the Forbes platform to publish their blog entries. That doesn't count as a reliable source. BusinessWire looks to be a reprint of some press release of some sort, which would fail WP:ORGIND, and the Finance Magnate entry is simply a run of the mill announcement, which wouldn't be considered towards notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. There's nothing to see here. Rather boring Forex company. If you don't buy the notability argument, look at WP:NOT: this is a promotional directory entry. Both of which are enough for deletion even if the GNG is met (which it isn't). See WP:N and WP:DEL14 on the NOT point. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I guess everything is boring if it's different from someone's area of expertise. You can read the BIO of the Forbes editor anyway, I have added new sources from a book, academia and their charitable work. I think HYCM is well known within the industry and recognized internationally. NoMoreHate (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter what the Forbes contributor's background was. The fact is that it was not written by a staff writer under strict editorial oversight, but by one of their contributors using their online blogging platform. That doesn't count as an RS for the purposes of notability. The sourcing you added was not about the company,but about its founder and awards received by that person. It might be an argument for them having an article (I'm not sure), but it doesn't contribute to the company's notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A number of the article's sources lack depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) and only mention employees of the company or charitable contributions, both of which subjects carry their own notability which is not inherited by the subject company. Probably fails WP:PROMOTION as the current article serves to promote certain aspects of the company.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP, no indications of notability. References fail the criteria for establishing notability as they are either PRIMARY sources (or entirely based on PRIMARY sources such as PR or company announcements) or mentions-in-passing. A common misunderstanding frequently encountered at AfD and repeated here is that if an "independent" source publishes an article, it meets the criteria for notability. This is not the case. A source may be "independent" and print a company announcement. The article itself must be "intellectually independent" - simply publishing a company announcement with no independent opinion or analysis fails the criteria for establishing notability. Not one of the references here meet the criteria and is only indicative of a functioning marketing department at the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've decided to make an entry into this discussion, primarily because this page exhibits a clearly notable company that people will no doubt source good information from. As for WP:CORPDEPTH , I can see that the page goes into necessary detail to establish the basics to satisfy the underlying principles, but does not warrant deletion. While doing some research on what and what not satisfied WP:CORPDEPTH, I found an interesting list that a few people on this thread are failing to recognize. Here are a few examples of pages that do not satisfy its requirements:

"Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules, the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories, inclusion in lists of similar organizations, the season schedule or final score from sporting events, routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season), routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, routine restaurant reviews, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization."

A brief look at HYCM's page finds information, though admittedly sparse, describing acquisitions, offices, achievements, purpose, history, publications, and regulatory bodies. If anything, this page satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH and should be grown and edited, not deleted. Pages on Wikipedia are meant to grow and expand, especially on the input of Wikipedia editors, and with a notable company with good information, deletion should be reserved only for those that seriously detract from Wikipedia guidelines. In response to -- HighKing, I have to say that good articles don't simply spawn out of thin air. If you want to find analysis and introduce new information, you can go ahead and improve the article in that fashion. Because a page exists doesn't mean that it's incompletion is permanent.

Secondly, I am having trouble understanding why there are WP:ORGIND claims, when it sources almost 20 different articles and sources, along with what seems to be a legitimate award from Forex among others. Hardly any of them show fabrication or creation by the subject of the Wikipedia page whatsoever. Forbes, Forex, World Finance, and Business Wire are reputable, independent sources. A simple Google brings up IBTimes articles, MarketWatch sources, and the Wall Street Journal, among many others. Sometimes, a Google search is the best way to establish reputability, notability, and whether it passes WP:ORGIND which it almost clearly does. You would have to be crazy to assume that sources like Forbes and IBT don't have a significant audience in accordance with WP:ORGIND , either.

Finally, other Forex brokers, such as IC Markets have had successful Wikipedia pages for years now, and this article can be counted as one of the more detailed of them. Again, steps should be taken to further expand the article, source it better because the sources do exist, and tag it for cleaning rather than a deletion. You cannot simply delete a page because people like TonyBallioni think "There's nothing to see here. Rather boring Forex company." To this I say, shame on you Tony. This is Wikipedia. Things don't get denied posting because specific people think it's boring. Millions of people across the world work in business that have to do with Forex trading, and it is very shameful to see a Wikipedian of your caliber take article posting in such a negative and immature way.

Anyway, I hope that shed some light a bit on this issue. I strongly recommend a KEEP vote, and I hope the administrators and editors responsible for flagging the page put their egos aside and work together for the benefit of the Wikipedia community. Please leave me a reply below this message if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to respond in kind. Thanks for the input from everyone! It's what makes Wikipedia great. Buddhabob (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Buddhabob, Based on your comments and reasoning contained therein, I believe you misunderstand what is required for meeting the criteria for establishing notability. The references (articles, books, etc) must be "intellectually independent". Both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND contain guidelines to assist in identifying references that are not considered intellectually independent - even if those references are published by indepedent secondary sources. The guidelines clearly state that material published by the company such as PR, announcements regarding funding, acquisitions, hiring/firing, new business, case studies, etc, are not "intellectually independent" and therefore are not considered for the purposes of establishing notability. In some cases, where an article is based on a company announcement but also contains independent opinion or analysis, those references would count towards establishing notability. There are two tasks when looking at references. The first is to check that the source is an independent secondary source, and your comment in relation to the article referencing almost 20 different articles and sources only confirms that the first part of the task has been attempted. What you are failing to do is to then ensure that each individual reference is "intellectually independent". That is, the article is not just repeating or entirely based (even though paraphrased) on material produced by the company. The references produced for this article fail the criteria. There are no intellectually independent articles, independent opinions or analysis. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, Highking, from what I've seen is a wide variety of business publications that mention HYCM (IBT, Forbes, WSJ) in a purely analytical format, not as one to promote or praise its services, negating the ones for awards. I think that interpreting what constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND is too convoluted to remove this article, especially when there are dozens of other articles that I've seen that are stubs on Wikipedia with little to no sourcing at all. Deleting this article will prevent industrious people like yourself from making this article better, and from what I've seen on Google, we can easily put our efforts into ensuring that this article definitely meets policy requirements. Buddhabob (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Needs a complete re-write and removal of WP:ORGAWARDS, but the subject passes GNG. Contains several references. Mar11 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources (and it currently doesn't contain enough) to show that it passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this appears to be a WP:MILL platform for forex trading. None of the references seem to be sufficient for WP:GNG; if any of the keep voters would like to give one or two references they feel are substantial non-neutral coverage, please do so. I see mostly trivial references, regulatory paperwork, and press releases on BusinessWire. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I recommend a return to first principles here:

• "any significant or demonstrable effects on society or economies"? None that I could see.
• Comparison with other existing articles. That's a ding on the other articles, not a credit to this one.
• Quotes by the company or its principals are not coverage of the company.
• Choice of sources: Organs that rewrite press releases are not intellectually independent in my book. The award comes from World News Media whose business model is based on vanity awards.Rhadow (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a run-of-the-mill financial service company. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Copy is highly promotional and touts the owner's charitable donations. Nothing stands out about this company, so "delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. As it is currently, this article is much better developed than many Forex trading pages currently present on Wikipedia. With a bit more clarification, and with the wide variety of sources available, this article can still be improved and it can stand out. Buddhabob (talk) 14:09, 29 September 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.