Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Street Capital

:{{la|Jane Street Capital}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jane_Street_Capital Stats])

:({{Find sources|Jane Street Capital}})

Fails WP:ORG, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.

scope_creep talk (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep -- This is a major international company and therefore notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradhall71 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep -- These high frequency traders on stock exchanges are a menace to cream off profits that might be made by long term investors. However with a turnover of $8bn per day, it is impossible to argue that this is NN, even if its three main rivals as yet have no articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

---

• Weak delete - None of the unbiased references talk directly about the subject. One discusses the subject taking a lease, but the focus on the leasing market. Another article includes the subject among companies with difficult interviews and explains briefly why the interviews are difficult. The last just lists the subject among a group of high-speed traders. None of this shows notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete clear claim to notability, but lack of in depth coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:ORG. Doesn't the Financial Times and WSJ write in depth about these guys? --Bejnar (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• They are covered in depth, so the article should be kept. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

---

• Strong Keep. Look at the coverage they have from [https://www.google.com/search?q=jane+street+capital+site:wsj.com wsj], [https://www.google.com/search?q=jane+street+capital+site:ft.com ft], [https://www.google.com/search?q=jane+street+capital+site:bloomberg.com bloomberg.com], and [https://www.google.com/search?q=jane+street+capital+site%3Abusinessinsider.com BusinessInsider]. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Stong Keep -There are plenty of references to this subject and it is clearly notable. this article satisfies WP:GNG and I believe it also satisfies WP:Corp. I am not sure how this subject made its way to the AfD floor? --Canyouhearmenow 11:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable per WP:GNG, due to size and coverage in media. Sufficiently sourced. -- Taketa (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2014 (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.