Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exchange Data International Limited

: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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

=[[Exchange Data International Limited]]=

:{{la|Exchange Data International Limited}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exchange_Data_International_Limited Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Exchange Data International Limited}})

Companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The depth of sources required is not satisfied here. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page with sections such as "History and about" and "Products". Tone is promotional, and sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep - The references seem good and enough to pass it Notability. But the article is a little bit promotional, which can be fixed by tagging it with "advert" tag and thorough cleanup. Not a reason for deletion. - Mar11 (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete a distinct paucity of independent RS coverage that reaches WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete There is hardly any coverage in RS. I found one link to a forbes/sites [http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomgroenfeldt/2015/02/24/investment-research-goes-a-la-carte/#409d94c8468d] but this doesn't help it notability (Forbes/sites have been previously considered as WP:USERGENERATED sources). This is far from satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

: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.