Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIAX Pearl Equities

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep‎ after nominator witdrawining the nom. (non-admin closure) FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MIAX Pearl Equities[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

MIAX Pearl Equities (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. References are company news and routine annoucements. scope_creepTalk 11:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree with this nomination.
1. Statement is untrue. I have included references from Financial Times meeting general notability criteria as outlined in WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV.
2. This is also balanced with other sources such as The Royal Gazette, and another company's press release, meeting WP:SECONDARY and WP:IS criteria.
3. Remaining primary sources, press releases and company pages, beyond that are stylistic choices of the author's own, but sufficiency is met even if those references were removed.
4. All other US stock exchanges, including smaller ones such as Long-Term Stock Exchange, and Investors Exchange already have their own pages.
5. Crucially, Consolidated Tape Association and Unlisted Trading Privileges have long pointed to each of these exchanges' pages for WP:POFR, and only MIAX Pearl Equities remains redirected to its holding company Miami International Holdings.
- Cara Wellington (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For avoidance of doubt, I have added WP:RS and non-business news from Wall Street Journal and S&P Global.
- Cara Wellington (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got a bit distracted looking at Long-Term Stock Exchange, oops. But I took a quick squiz at the ProQuest results, unfortunately could not find anything there either. I'm sorry to say that the WP:ORGDEPTH requirements are a bit stricter than what's available, and it's quite rare for routine coverage of launches to go beyond WP:ORGTRIV. Unfortunately, delete. (Also, full disclosure, I only got about 6 pages in before it started showing the regulatory filings again, so I did not review the full 2748 results ProQuest gave me, only slightly over a fifth of that, but I do not anticipate it making a material difference) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be reviewing a possible merge instead per CNMall at the other one. Not entirly convinced the section in Glob. Fin. J. meets the relevant criterion for independance of content but it's... something at least. Available via the TWL bundle access to ScienceDirect for anyone with 500/6mo who wants to read it themselves. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recommend a merge. This would be inconsistent with how exchange articles have been written for almost the entirety of Wikipedia - many of which have shown far less "independence of content" and depth of references than the arbitrary threshold you're applying here. See for example:
    Further, exchanges frequently change hands and this ends up becoming unmaintainable if you're constantly merging them upstream even after they've established a level of independence. I've still yet to help clean up NYSE Euronext and Euronext but it's not going to be an easy effort. Cara Wellington (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review.
    1. Could you reconsider your opinion if you search for "Miami Exchange" or "MIAX" instead? "MIAX Pearl Equities" is the formal entity name of the stock exchange as per regulatory filings, and I have followed this convention. However, the exchange is more commonly referred to as "MIAX", which unfortunately conflates with MIH's naming for options exchanges and causes this confusion.
    2. I made the above search on ProQuest and don't see a problem meeting WP:SIGCOV given the extensive coverage in Financial Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Barron's, Bloomberg that not only relate to the company itself, but also rivals Nasdaq and CBOE.
    3. Further, a national stock exchange's history appears to meet WP:ORGDEPTH guidelines, which I cite:
    • "An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization".
    • "Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience".
    4. I should point out that deletion would be an inconsistent application of guidelines, considering similar or less coverage of other national exchanges found on ProQuest, some of which have much less volume or are even defunct altogether:
    - Cara Wellington (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MIAX was the search term I used for ProQuest. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. That explains: for some reason, your search only yields 2,748 results but I see 12,960 results for MIAX. It appears that this inconsistency is because ProQuest is not a WP:REPUTABLE or reliable source. I wrote a Python script to scan all of such 12,960 results for MIAX and also the 96 "Newspapers" entries returned and it appears not to index links from many reliable sources, such as these ones:
    Let me know if you can corroborate these findings, e.g. with screenshots of the 6 pages you've seen or the payload returned from the proquest.com/resultsol/ endpoint that I can run a script on, or if there's anything else I can do to help. In any case, I'll go ahead to add some of these references to the article to resolve your WP:ORGTRIV concerns. Thanks again.
    - Cara Wellington (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ProQuest is a collection of databases, it doesn't really index things the same way a web search engine would. Most of my search results would have been from ProQuest Central, because historical newspapers aren't very likely to be of interest (I also have access to One Academic, but, again). After excluding The Federal Register and a few other publications, you should find the number quite comparable. Also, I'm fairly sure scraping would violate something in my TOU somewhere, and I would rather not get in trouble with my institutions, or my institution in trouble with ProQuest.
    Also not sure how you expect the sources in your most recent comment to meet WP:ORGDEPTH where the others didn't. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I'm unable to replicate your methodology and will invite the next editor who visits this discussion to do so, because "quite comparable" is a vague quantifier. 12,960 or 2,748 - those two numbers are too drastically different and cannot be dismissed as "quite comparable". I've also given you concrete, specific links which are not tracked in this tool or apparently outdated collection of databases.
    • I've also identified the two specific clauses of WP:ORGDEPTH guidelines that I specifically sought to address, in point 3 above. This seems to be a case of WP:THIS or WP:THAT or WP:THEOTHER without an attempted interpretation of what WP:ORGDEPTH means.
    • Trivially, one has likely heard of Reuters, Bloomberg, and CNBC, however this is the first time I've heard of ProQuest. The latter appears to be unreliable and not a meaningful measure of WP:NCORP or WP:ORGDEPTH. So if you intend on admitting WP:NOTRS for relevance, I hope you agree that the burden of proof is on you, not myself, to show how you expect your sources to matter to this discussion.
    - Cara Wellington (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Next you'll tell me you've never heard of Gale or EBSCO either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. My contributions are mostly in finance, CS, math, which also aligns with my professional background. We use different research databases in our area and so I find this is a strange barometer of ORGDEPTH, in the same way you wouldn't use a search on Nature or NEJM to indicate GNG on a political person of interest.
    I'm sure they're meaningful in your area of subject matter expertise and that's great. I'm not questioning your expertise, just pointing out how your methodology appears flawed and unscientific, so we can make the editorial process a little bit better for the next person who comes along here with an article in finance.
    There's no WP acronym to express my respect for people who're trying to make the world a better place. So as critical as I sound, it doesn't mean my respect for you is diminished. You have a hard enough job patrolling the AfD queue and I don't mean to make life more difficult for you.
    - Cara Wellington (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are pretty solid secondary sources. I wish to see you more at Afd. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creepTalk 08:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt withdrawal of your nomination. Would you kindly review your nomination in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami International Holdings again if you have the time as well? The same editor has also provided similar analysis of the coverage on the parent company, and I've also tried my best to improve the article to meet guidelines.
- Cara Wellington (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 08:30, 7 May 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MIAX_Pearl_Equities&oldid=1223329806"