Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forex Club (2nd 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forex Club

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

Procedural nomination. An earlier version of the article was deleted a couple of months ago, but the author of the latest incarnation has (reasonably) argued that it differs enough that WP:G4 doesn't apply. For the duration of this discussion, I've undeleted the history of both versions to allow people to compare and contract. Procedural nomination, so I abstain. ‑ Iridescent 19:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is a translation of the Russian version. In the Russian Wikipedia this page has been recognized as a notable. This article was written based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject (not "press releases and entries in databases"): Vedomosti, Kommersant, Interfax, etc. Andrey Broker (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though better written it has the same problems as the last iteration of it. It consists almost entirely of company announcements and data. The criticism is new but also is just a list of announcements and data. The fact that there is a Russian version of the page does not establish notability. It seems to consist of just a Russian web site (if you visit the web site and choose e.g. English you get taken to the web site of an entirely different company), and fall well short of WP:ORG.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no more notability for en:wp purposes than last time - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I still confirm everything I said in August since this is literally still trivial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to this source. This article wrote the Russian economist Andrey Buzdalin, this is forex market research (about FC is written very much). Another source — Kommersant, in the text are also many encyclopaedic information on the history and activities of the company. The company definitely notable (this is proved by the sources in Russian). Perhaps article style needs some work, I beg you to help me with this, because the English language is foreign to me. Andrey Broker (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is no one willing to do the work to prepare the community for a deletion discussion, there is no need for a discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement on deletion. Light2021 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2016 (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.