Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MultiCharts

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 12:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MultiCharts

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

After seven years nobody has added evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Leaning to keep. We don't delete articles that don't display evidence of notability, we delete articles for which no evidence can be found. It is easy to find significant coverage of this trading platform in the trade press, for example [1] [2] [3] plus a lot of other coverage on leaprate.com, which is a news publication for traders. That said, I have always objected to using trade publications for establishing notability. I started a discussion on this, which never really resolved anything, archived here (my username was Amatulić at the time). My arguments there still stand, in my opinion. But as long as we are using trade publications to establish notability, this article would be a keeper. I'll mention that, as a former trader myself, MultiCharts is one of the dominant trading platforms in the market. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the article is still not in fact satisfactory for actual substance and the sources listed above are in fact simply trivial tech blogs, ones I've never actually heard of so that says something, simply nothing amounting to a genuinely convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"That says something" how? Conversely, it's just as valid to say "I've heard of them, so that says something." Questions about the reliability of sources like Leaprate should be taken to
WP:RSN. I don't see anything to suggest they are unreliable. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable software used by share traders. It passes
WP:NSOFT...Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2016 (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.