Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EXNESS Group

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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EXNESS Group

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

Cross-wiki spamming. (ja, zh, de, pl, pt, etc.) Mys_721tx (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in reliable sources appears to be routine and trivial, and therefore not enough to establish notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable minor company in New Zealand (Russian owned 60%) NealeFamily (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article content is purely promotional, no notability under corporate guidelines; References are largely non-mainstream advertorial masquerading as coverage of the company and fail WP:RS. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 24 April 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.