Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banc De Binary

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Discounting !votes from obvious single-purpose accounts and socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banc De Binary

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Banc De Binary (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 don't think this article meets Wikipedia standards. Article not relevant or notable. Page only exists to disparage the subject. Constant vandalism. NLZ06 (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blocked sockpuppet. MER-C 23:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many of the sources don't have anything to do with the company, are just about binary options. There is no general notability on broad media, just very specific and (i'm not so sure if realible) investment pages. There is also no notability on the subject, it's just another trader which can't keep record of his own figures. (How can it be founded on Seychelles and then New York?) And then they use a virtual office direction. Article Fails at notability and verifiability. I propose deletion per WP:NOTE Lakratani (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — Lakratani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak keep Page has been up for deletion before, and the result was delete; but since then (notwithstanding WP:ILLCON) the company has managed to get itself rather more prominence by virtue of its regulatory woes. As a note, it's not subject to "constant vandalism"; the page has been blanked once by, er, the nominator of this AFD, and that's the only remotely vandalism-like activity. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article in it's current form should actually be titled "History of SEC and CFTC Lawsuit against Banc De Binary". There is very little material about the company and it's operations other than those relevant to the law-suite. Since the company is a private company, other than coverage of the case, it has very little non-pr / non-affiliates / reputable sources of factual information which can be verified, thus the company is not significant enough to warrant an article. BDBJack (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. User:BDBJack has a declared conflict of interest with the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article reads more like a "puff" article than anything else. It's more of an advertisement than editing from a neutral point of view not representing fairly, proportionately, filled with bias and there are very few significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Everything in article listed resources are not from high-quality sources or poorly sourced. Like one of the user mentioned its more of a list of the names rather its history. I strongly recommend for speedy deletionKiran A.N (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kiran A.N, have you actually read the article under discussion? Far from being a "puff piece", three-quarters of it is negative. If anything, it's biased against the company. The History section is not a list of names at all, and no user has mentioned that "its more of a list of the names rather its history"—either here or on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is nothing but pure legal jargon. Arguments of whether the company is liable for a criminal or civil case. The only recognized sources are the CFTC and SEC. If we provided a page for every single CFTC and SEC case, we wouldn't hear the end of it. If we wrote about every single CFTC or SEC charge Goldman Sachs, a notable financial conglomerate, received in the past 5 years - the page would be endless. Delete the banc de binary page and don't provide a spotlight for random regulators. AllMy65 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — AllMy65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete The article serves as an advertorial to the pros and cons of this company that runs a binary options trading operation. It receives top ranks on SERPs and on the surface appears as an auspicious write up. There's no investigative nor informative value to the article and it doesn't prove nor refute the claims and conjectures raised therein. There's much gossip and hearsay in the article that ultimately fail to provide any objective conclusions. I would like to see it deleted and not evolve into an editable infomercial page. Ishais (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is accurate and well sourced having been mentioned in the Daily Mail, CTFC, SEC because of it's legal problems. This company is known for some of the wrong reasons, but while that's it's own fault, it is still a notable company and of great public interest. It is also the subject of intense current media and news interest as the first 'Binary Options' company to be taken to court by US regulators. This is ironic as the company built up a huge online presence with numerous puff pieces and claims of the CEO's past in NY Hedge Funds. I note that since Banc de Binary's own editors failed to whitewash the page to suit their needs, they have simply hit on another ruse which is to delete it. The very conception of deletion was raised by a sockpuppet and some of the contributors above also appear to be from Banc de Binary. This is an article about a company, which is currently making the news and the sources comes from excellent places.HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) — HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The4887. The message you got earlier was a "timed out" not a 404. I just clicked on the link and it works fine. What other references to do you object to? What is the "bad content" you are objecting to? In any case, the existence of broken links is not a valid reason to delete an article. It's a valid reason to fix them. Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable, if not for anything good, minor firm with a hinky history. Ignore obvious COI edits and s.p.a./sockpuppet accounts only here to cover up what they don't want to see known. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's marginally notable, and we have a few good references. It's a brand or affiliate or subsidiary of Spot Option, which hosts about 200 or so online storefronts doing what Banc de Binary does. (See, for example, Banc de Swiss.[1]) There's what appears to be a sizable link farm promoting Banc de Binary. (See, for example, My Banc de Binary Review [2]) Most of the first hundred or so Google results seem to be mostly link farm junk. An article on Spot Option with sections on their affiliates would be more appropriate, but there's not enough hard info yet on Spot Option online for a decent article. Despite the problems of sorting the wheat of reliable sources from the chaff of SEO spamming, the COI issues, and the sockpuppets, I'm inclined towards "keep". I could see converting this to a Spot Option article and making Banc de Binary a redirect, but that may be premature. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although the article is a bit of a mess with a lot of POV statements, the company is notable even in the negative and so justifies having an article. Better to clean this up and remove the POV content rather than delete it. Sargdub (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The references are not even in valid form, because every reference link quotes differently, there is nothing similar between those references all contents are invalid in reference to the website.If some votes are for keep and edit the content, I strictly recommend not to update but delete, because you can see that how much wrong data is noted in this article. So intentionally the content is created to be wrong to misguide the people regarding Banc De Binary. Found nothing for US Regulatory Issues in any manner as presented here in wikipedia on Banc De binary. Deletion of this content is necesarry because some of the points like SEC and CTFC are totally in wrong manner.If some votes are for keep and edit the content, I strictly recommend not to update but delete, because you can see that how much wrong data is noted in this article. So intentionally the content is created to be wrong to misguide the people regarding Banc De Binary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The4887 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — The4887 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You've just !voted twice. GoldenRing (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the second !vote. Voceditenore (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article needs work, but the sources do seem to indicate notability. I wouldn't expect this to be the last time we see this article up here, though. HOT WUK (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Notability established. Having read this page before I read the article, I was expecting a stub with a half-dozen dodgy cites. Looking at the article with my lowered expectations, it's really not that bad. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Banc_De_Binary&oldid=1137595664"