Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XM.com (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. Salting can be asked for at WP:RFPP, not quite sure if we have consensus for that yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XM.com

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

Promotional article. WP:REFBOMB looks good, but is passing mentions, non-RS or promotional. Was deleted previously for the same concerns. See also heavily edited by banned spammer Euclidthalis. David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent sources, page follows typical PR pattern of [Unsourced, oddly-weighted intro -> Pointless history section -> Exhaustive list of non-notable variants of non-notable products -> Exhaustive list of non-notable awards] Jergling (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At least it didn't have a three-paragraph section detailing their funding rounds - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly "corporate spam" and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt given the 1st deletion and of which is still closely linked to this one the fact it was restarted and it's still an advertising as it once was; nothing here is actually both substantial and non-PR, certainly nothing of actually meaningful improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a trader I can verify that the page had referrals to trading strategies which are not content that would belong on this sort of a page on Wikipedia (They are specialized strategies which not everyone will understand and moreover could lead to loss of capital if used by novice traders) therefore I have taken the initiative to remove them along with Non Notable Awards which I tend to agree with as noted by David Gerard. I don't agree it is corporate spam as noted by K.e.coffman. XM is a notable trading brand along with FxPro, Plus500 so deleting the page would be unfair in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.119.67 (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Notability not established in the in-passing mentions, routine business announcements given in the article. The meat of the article is the self-promotional sports sponsorships. This only serves to add a veneer of legitimacy to the scheme by listing the regulatory agencies etc. and the history is apparently part of a broader effort to fleece gullible victims of binary options scams, uncovered at WP:Conflict of interest/noticeboard#Offshore trading companies, regulators and promotion agency (permlink). Also note lack of community enthusiasm for the likes of Forex Brokerz as RSes at RSN here. - Brianhe (talk) 22:52, 4 October 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.