Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanian Commodities Exchange

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. plicit 14:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Commodities Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rejected draft at Draft:Romanian_Commodities_Exchange which was created in mainspace by draft author. No indication of meeting WP:NORG and I also think it has AI-generated text throughout. qcne (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. qcne (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, tendentiously created after rejection at WP:AFC, totally fails WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback. I would like to clarify that this article was not created with any intention to bypass the AFC process. Instead, after the draft rejection, I gathered a series of independent, reliable, and in-depth sources to better support the subject’s notability.
    The Romanian Commodities Exchange (BRM) has been featured extensively in respected Romanian financial publications, including Ziarul Financiar, HotNews, Profit.ro, and Economica.net, with coverage on Andra Tobosaru (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But you specifically did bypass the AFC process, @Andra Tobosaru qcne (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to ask if it is possible to move the current version of the article back to Draft space so I can continue improving it with more independent, reliable sources, including:
    Official documents and reports from institutions like ANRE, the Ministry of Energy, and ACER,
    Media coverage from Ziarul Financiar, HotNews, Profit.ro, and Economica.net,
    And recent analytical content published on platforms like Zenodo.
    My intention is to submit it properly through Articles for Creation (AfC) after further improvements.
    Thank you for your understanding and guidance. Andra Tobosaru (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andra Tobosaru Unfortunately it can't be moved back to draft since the draft already exists. If this article does get deleted on mainspace, I'd really recommend working solely on the draft in draftspace. Drafts are not deleted unless they haven't been edited in over six months. You can work on it in draft and try to gather sources. qcne (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources are produced by them or otherwise largely based on what they say. S0091 (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The draft as written straddles the line between an essay and an investors' brochure. I will also assess the sources used in both the article and the draft.
Since I'm very sceptical the Zenodo source is anything but what it claims to be (essentially a profile of the company), nothing here helps with eligibility. The bad sourcing, promotional writing, and essaylike structure each by themselves would be enough to delete; all three together are damning. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:41, 28 July 2025 (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.