642:. So we can't assume they are all bad. Sites having Affiliate Links are not necessarily bad. It is just one way of generating income, besides banner ads. Many credible sites use Affiliate links. In addition, some guidelines for notability state that having peer reviewed reviews is good to have. All these sites are industry sites that have reviewed them positively, so its a good thing that they have so much coverage from industry sites and it shows their notability. If they were unknown, then they would not have so much coverage. Also, suggesting that the company paid for these or submitted bios, is possible, but it's more likely that the company bio was copied from their site or other sites when these sites did independent reviews. Finally, I could not find any evidence that their founder is an SEO guy by the name of " Ziga Breznik," the article states that their founder's name is " Andrew Budzinski."
272:. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails
511:, NCORP guidelines set the criteria for references and these are examined fairly strictly. Looking at the references posted above, a fair few of them are very obscure websites and others are broker "referral" sites - these are not "independent", they exist simply to push people towards certain brokers and collect a referral fee. For example,
595:
which mention the company but they're either talking about an event involving the company or they're fleeting mentions-in-passing, none though which meets CORPDEPTH criteria. I've searched and the majority of stuff is PR or referral sites with some newspaper mentions-in-passing or an article talking
635:
Given the new sources from The
Australian, I re-emphasize my Keep vote. Regarding the issues that HighKing brought up, your concern that all these sites may not be credible is understandable, given your arguments. However, none are listed as a bad source
563:
which looks good, has no disclaimers and claims to have done all the research, but has a referral system in place. Big red flag though is that the founder, Ziga
Breznik, appears to also promote himself as an SEO expert and also promotes
229:
96:
91:
86:
618:. These are good in-depth articles. You will also see that the article states that the company is the 60th largest tax payer in Australia and the CEO is the 69th richest person in Australia.
551:
focuses on the community of brokers and traders that use the multi-award-winning cTrader platform on a daily basis - so designed to promote those brokers, not independent, fails ORGIND.
539:
and many many more. The use of the exact same descriptions and text means that the content is being provided by the company - its their form of marketing. Also, check out
440:
Google news shows 24 pages of results on them, some press releases and most mentions, but there are several
Reuters articles and many industry publication covering them.
190:
588:
417:
324:
290:
223:
307:
610:
I have updated the article with some info and two new links from The
Australian, which is a huge publication here in Australia. Here are the two article links:
581:
390:
637:
577:
386:
137:
122:
81:
503:
There's no doubt the company exists and even mentioned in newpapers, but that doesn't mean the company is "notable". !voters above claim that it meets
585:
515:
uses the exact same descriptions as many other websites such as mytopbroker.com (which although no longer exists you can still see the descriptions
415:
270:
original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
382:
117:
110:
17:
486:
Agree with the Google news search comment above. ABC Money, Reuters, etc. - there are reliable sources of news on this one.
163:
158:
651:
627:
602:
495:
476:
449:
432:
402:
353:
333:
316:
299:
282:
65:
572:
on how to make $ $ $ $ selling on Amazon. There's more online if you look. Hard to treat this as a credible source, fails
167:
244:
211:
150:
131:
127:
458:
668:
349:
40:
592:
420:
205:
544:
428:
370:
664:
647:
411:
410:
per above. Not exactly non-notable and has been featured in
Australian and international news, like the
398:
36:
623:
201:
580:
fromm the
Financial Commission which offers no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH;
345:
472:
445:
261:
237:
548:
374:
251:
596:
about how some brokers complained about false margin calls - none of which meets NCORP criteria.
491:
61:
560:
378:
540:
536:
424:
365:. Most articles are entirly about them and there are some peer reviewed site reviews. Check:
106:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
663:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
643:
394:
265:
273:
154:
611:
268:. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include
217:
543:
and you can see that it says the same stuff too. Another referral site listed above is
468:
441:
260:
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
597:
508:
504:
487:
362:
328:
311:
294:
277:
57:
53:
516:
619:
573:
184:
524:
520:
532:
146:
71:
565:
528:
512:
366:
556:
615:
584:
also has no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH;
569:
552:
659:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
461:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
344:
per the very well reasoned argument for deletion of HighKing.
393:
and more. They seem to be a major
Australian stock broker.
555:
is also not "independent" and even carries a disclaimer
180:
176:
172:
236:
467:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
97:Articles for deletion/IC Markets (4th nomination)
92:Articles for deletion/IC Markets (3rd nomination)
87:Articles for deletion/IC Markets (2nd nomination)
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
671:). No further edits should be made to this page.
323:Note: This discussion has been included in the
306:Note: This discussion has been included in the
289:Note: This discussion has been included in the
325:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
291:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
250:
8:
308:list of Finance-related deletion discussions
138:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
322:
305:
288:
264:and (this bit is important!) containing
52:. Thanks everyone for participating and
79:
527:review is practically identical as is
262:in-depth information *on the company*
7:
559:, fails ORGIND. This leaves us with
568:which attempts to convince you to
24:
582:this mention in Finance Magnates
123:Introduction to deletion process
82:Articles for deletion/IC Markets
576:. The remaining references are
541:the company's *own* description
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
379:publicfinanceinternational.org
1:
113:(AfD)? Read these primers!
688:
652:19:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
628:09:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
603:21:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
561:PublicFinanceInternational
496:15:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
477:02:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
450:19:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
433:15:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
403:21:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
354:20:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
334:18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
317:18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
300:18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
283:18:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
661:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
387:financialcommission.org
371:forexbrokerlistings.com
77:AfDs for this article:
66:18:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
570:sign up for his video
412:Sydney Morning Herald
375:bestctradebrokers.com
266:"Independent Content"
111:Articles for deletion
525:thatreallyworked.com
391:financemagnates.com
54:assuming good faith
591:in SMH and one in
553:TheNextBitcoin.net
549:BestcTraderBrokers
383:thenextbitcoin.net
578:this announcement
537:dailybluepips.com
479:
346:John Pack Lambert
336:
319:
302:
128:Guide to deletion
118:How to contribute
679:
639:Reliable Sources
566:First Page Elite
545:foxbrokerlisting
533:forexsuggest.com
529:trade-leader.com
466:
464:
462:
255:
254:
240:
188:
170:
108:
34:
687:
686:
682:
681:
680:
678:
677:
676:
675:
669:deletion review
480:
457:
455:
419:on Google) and
197:
161:
145:
142:
105:
102:
101:
75:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
685:
683:
674:
673:
655:
654:
630:
605:
498:
465:
454:
453:
452:
435:
405:
356:
338:
337:
320:
303:
258:
257:
194:
141:
140:
135:
125:
120:
103:
100:
99:
94:
89:
84:
78:
76:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
684:
672:
670:
666:
662:
657:
656:
653:
649:
645:
641:
640:
634:
631:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
606:
604:
601:
600:
594:
590:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
507:- but as per
506:
502:
499:
497:
493:
489:
485:
482:
481:
478:
474:
470:
463:
460:
451:
447:
443:
439:
436:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
416:
413:
409:
406:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
367:55brokers.com
364:
360:
357:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
339:
335:
332:
331:
326:
321:
318:
315:
314:
309:
304:
301:
298:
297:
292:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
280:
275:
271:
267:
263:
253:
249:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
203:
200:
199:Find sources:
195:
192:
186:
182:
178:
174:
169:
165:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
143:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
124:
121:
119:
116:
115:
114:
112:
107:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
660:
658:
638:
632:
607:
598:
500:
483:
456:
437:
425:Batmanthe8th
407:
358:
341:
329:
312:
295:
278:
269:
259:
247:
241:
233:
226:
220:
214:
208:
198:
104:
49:
47:
31:
28:
644:Lesliechin1
395:Lesliechin1
224:free images
147:IC Markets
72:IC Markets
665:talk page
513:55brokers
469:Barkeep49
442:Peter303x
414:(I found
37:talk page
667:or in a
599:HighKing
589:articles
488:Star7924
459:Relisted
330:HighKing
313:HighKing
296:HighKing
279:HighKing
274:WP:NCORP
191:View log
132:glossary
58:Missvain
39:or in a
633:Comment
620:Mvonabo
593:Reuters
501:Comment
421:Reuters
230:WP refs
218:scholar
164:protect
159:history
109:New to
509:WP:SNG
505:WP:GNG
363:WP:GNG
361:meets
342:Delete
202:Google
168:delete
636:here
574:WP:RS
245:JSTOR
206:books
185:views
177:watch
173:links
16:<
648:talk
624:talk
614:and
608:Keep
557:here
521:here
519:and
517:here
492:talk
484:Keep
473:talk
446:talk
438:Keep
429:talk
408:Keep
399:talk
359:Keep
350:talk
238:FENS
212:news
181:logs
155:talk
151:edit
62:talk
50:keep
586:Two
523:),
377:,
252:TWL
189:– (
650:)
626:)
547:.
535:,
531:,
494:)
475:)
448:)
431:)
423:.
401:)
389:,
385:,
381:,
373:,
369:,
352:)
327:.
310:.
293:.
276:.
232:)
183:|
179:|
175:|
171:|
166:|
162:|
157:|
153:|
64:)
56:.
646:(
622:(
616:2
612:1
490:(
471:(
444:(
427:(
397:(
348:(
256:)
248:·
242:·
234:·
227:·
221:·
215:·
209:·
204:(
196:(
193:)
187:)
149:(
134:)
130:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.