Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oanda Corporation

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-03 07:39Z

[edit] Oanda Corporation

Oanda Corporation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Online currency exchange / trading website. Very little context and no sources in article (nice big logo in the infobox though), no sign of compliance with WP:CORP. Deizio talk 02:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Note to closing admin, this is not the article that was nominated. Keeper. Deizio talk 01:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep i would be willing to work on this if you deside to keep this i would try to make the artical better.Oo7565 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• You would really have to edit the article first then vote keep if you can demonstrate how it meets Wikipedia standards. Your vote may not be considered by the closing admin as it does not address the concerns in the nomination. Deizio talk 21:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete. Unless some references to the companies importance are forthcoming. Does not seem to be a major company. No impact on stock indexes. Only one minor mention in a newspaper I can find and cannot find any reliable backup to claims on their website like ranked number one for currency exchange information. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep now based on the expansion and some websearching. Appears to be up there in the currency trading world - Good work by User:Hit bull, win steak ! - Peripitus (Talk) 10:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Google lists 4000 pages that link to www.oanda.com, it seems to be becoming established as something of an authority. Mark for cleanup. Citicat 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• How about demonstrate compliance with WP:CORP or WP:WEB? There are 436 unique sitelinks to oanda.com, and a rummage reveals link farms and bare links. Does this constitute "becoming established as something of an authority"? Deizio talk 03:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:CORP states "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. . . . This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles . . ." Google News archive search since 2004 lists over 200 articles,[1] (a few of which refer to Opie and Anthony). Some sites use oanda as a source for current rates[2], which is what makes it an authority. Citicat 05:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertisement. Anthony Appleyard 10:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete Reads like advertisement, only keep if more information is added. Tarret 13:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As it stands, it just an infobox & advertisment. SkierRMH,00:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - there has been substantial work done on this to bring the multiple non-trivial published works into the article. SkierRMH 20:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

*Strong delete I was going to say keep until I looked at User talk:Nadyes. The fact that the creator of this article also made Template:Credit Card Cashback which was deleted makes me think that this is just spam and advertising. --BenWhitey 03:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep there has been a significant revision on the article, so that it does not seem like advertising at all. good job! --BenWhitey 20:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to have received substantial media coverage, including articles in the New York Times and The Globe and Mail. I'll see if I can expand it a bit. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added what I can for now. There are articles in other publications (including a pretty big one in USA Today) that I can't lay my hands on right now, along with about six kajillion brief "it's cool, try it!" mentions in articles like this one, which don't really add anything citable but do probably indicate some degree of notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

*Delete advertisement/marketing. Has also been a large source of ongoing linkspam on Wikipedia, most of which has been removed except for ones in the namespace oanda.com. --Hu12 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Did you read the revised version that I just posted? I don't think it'd qualify as spam or advertising... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Hit bull, win steak's revised version clearly shows that this statisfies WP:CORP point 1 ("The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.") --Pak21 18:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Week keepArticle now satisfies WP:CORP and reads less like an advertisment. Tarret 19:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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.