Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plus500

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus500

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

Absurdly promotional article for company that is at best borderline notable. It would be better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article points out the facts about the company, which are written in the neutral point of view. tausif(talk) 09:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

parts that read, "Plus500 was founded in 2008 with the intention to provide retail customers with an easy-to-use online trading platform. This idea was a result of the difficulties encountered by one of the founders when trying to short shares through a through a broker but did not because "the registration process was too complicated and unfriendly to the user" -- section based entirely on what the subject told his press agent, or what the press agent imagined was suitable. Such a phrase, about the origin of the firm because of personal unmet need of the founder, appears in many articles on firms. is not what I think an encyclopedia would mean by either "facts" or NPOV content. Perhaps a PR agent would think it factual, since it can't actually be proven to be false. Similarly with "In one interview, the Company's CEO Gal Haber talked about the intense recruitment process each candidate, which may take about six to ten months of time." DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these out. Like you said, this article would need a re-work. Let me see if I can do the changes. Thanks,Tausif

Comment -- As a company with a turnover of $50M (presumably gross fee income) and its holding company is quoted in London on AIM, I would have thought the company was notable. The business is trading in derivatives, which may be somewhat esoteric to some people, but that does not prevent it being notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while removing the biased statements as pointed out by DGG. tausif(talk) 09:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wide coverage of IPO in both UK and Israeli press: Telegraph and Haaretz already cited, plus[1][2][3][4] Not much other info but there's a few mentions.[5][6][7][8] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know I'm not helping the backlog with this vote, but it seems all the coverage is promotional, repeating press releases, trying to gain investors. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a good scrubbing to remove promotionality, but there is enough here for notability and AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:30, 16 October 2013 (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.