Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IC Markets (3rd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 13:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IC Markets

[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)

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are entirely based on standard company announcements and company-provided information, no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Also, last AfD was unduly overwhelmed by what we now know to be sockpuppet accounts. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Companies. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Coverage is predominantly routine. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to know what specific part of the deletion policy is being considered here? It seems that this company is large enough to have some sort of presence on Wiki or is it that companies have to have a certain criteria to be mentioned on Wiki? I don’t know… I came to this page as I am one of their clients (Uk based) and I was interested in finding out some more details about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.72 (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has many guidelines that the community has effectively agreed to (over much ongoing consensus) for what justifies a page's entry on Wikipedia. The following are relevant (but not exhaustive)and would be a good place for you to start: WP:GNG; WP:NCORP; WP:RS. Cabrils (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete OK this is interesting. I can see why it's been nominated for AfD. Certainly there are many dubious sources that I think do not pass RS (notably the Finance Magnate articles). However, this SMH article and this Australian article are arguably sufficient to pass GNG. I note however that this SMH article is a classic passing mention that absolutely fails RS/substantive commentary. Having done some searching, I failed to find any new RS articles. I think on balance there just isn't enough (yet) to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP-- this feels WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (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.