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 no consensus, default to keep. Discounting unsubstantiated claims and edits made by new editors, all that we have is a divide of opinion over the quality of a long list of external sources.

One interesting point was brought up in this AfD: some claim that this company is being investigated for fraud. If that's true, that'll actually make the company more notable. Deryck C. 11:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Global Trading

[edit]
Advanced Global Trading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see nothing that's notable about this small 140-person company. The refs are based on press releases, and are mainly about award nominations, not awards. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:41, 23 April 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, Theopolisme (talk) 01:07, 30 April 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, J04n(talk page) 02:08, 8 May 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, Mkdwtalk 18:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What criteria are you using to label these sources as press releases? As far as I can tell, these don't look like the typical press releases that companies use to inform investors of significant happenings. Also, I'm not sure why you're saying the last two are the same. They cover the same event, but they appear to be from different sources and they don't appear to have the same content. Isn't multiple instances of coverage from independent and different sources and organizations one of the requirements of notability? Transcendence (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.
  • When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. Transcendence (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't evaluate the legitimacy of a company - merely its notability. Lots of companies are indicted for all sorts of shenanigans, and yet are notable enough for articles - one does not impact the other. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you've not provided any evidence that the company is "under investigation" by any regulatory or legal authorities, and I can't find any evidence from WP:Reliable sources online that they are, just lots of wild allegations on money blogs. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per norms, per DGG.--JayJaykar (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC) — JayJaykar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Which "norms"? Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note to reviewing admins: User:JayJaykar has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Captain Conundrum (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As UltraExactzz noted above, we're not here to discuss whether they're a law-abiding company or not, we're here to discuss whether they're notable. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Conundrum, UltraExactzz if you notice even the above comment say Gameoveragt, there have been several complains from a similar yahoo address trying to damage the company reputation. Please suggest a way as it takes quite a lot of time to build up a wiki page only to realize someone got onto it an removed all the content. Is there no way you guys can go back and check all the content that was removed?--Mahmoodyaqub (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of blatant WP:SPAM from you on the article, along with the vandalism and poorly-sourced allegations of wrongdoing from other editors, all of which I and other editors have been removing. Both you and Gamoveragt evidently have a WP:Conflict of interest in the article, and I wish you'd both find another article to edit. Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Captain ConundrumMahmoodyaqub (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop blanking other editors' posts to this discussion. You're going to get blocked from editing by an administrator if you keep this up. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:36, 22 May 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.
  1. ^ http://www.redd-monitor.org/2013/05/09/advanced-global-trading-another-boiler-room-scam-or-a-ponzi-scheme-or-both/
More