Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami International Holdings

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miami International Holdings[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. 6 of the 11 references are non-rs and routine business news scope_creep^Talk 11:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've gone ahead to add several WP:RS/WP:INDEPENDENT references from Bloomberg, Reuters, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.

I've also added segments that reference news coverage on some prolonged controversy and lawsuits involving other companies to meet substantial coverage requirements as per WP:ORGDEPTH, and how the firm has first-ever approval to operate a derivatives exchange for digital assets in the US.

Keep. With these changes, a majority of the 22 references should be WP:RS with several intended to meet WP:N/WP:SIGCOV requirements that are not routine business events or have significance at regulatory level that has implications to national WP:AUD, e.g. IPO, lawsuits from or against other major international corporations, provision of a major financial index.

- Cara Wellington (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous independent and reliable sources providing significant coverage, including Bloomberg 1, Bloomberg 2, Bloomberg 3, WSJ, and S&PGMI. With these, it passes WP:ORGCRIT or GNG. (Editors should be sure the numerous press releases cited on the page are not supporting contentious material, though.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - There is also this reference. I would also consider changing the page name to Miami International Securities Exchange since its the exchange that seems to get most of the coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. It's not a bad idea but I'd like to explain my reasoning. I had considered writing the initial article on Miami International Securities Exchange ("MIAX Options Exchange"), the original options exchange under MIH, however I ruled against it because:
- MIAX Pearl Equities, Minneapolis Grain Exchange, Bermuda Stock Exchange, LedgerX, and the three other MIAX Exchange Group exchanges likely meet GNG and often require redirects to the parent company, which the MIAX Options Exchange is not.
- There are 3, soon 4, MIAX options exchanges of nearly equal notability and coverage these days, and people usually think of them as a single unit, just as they think of BZX/BYX/EDGA/EDGX as one under Cboe Global Markets.
- Exchanges often become antiquated and their names change frequently and this causes many editorial mistakes on WP. See for instance NYSE Arca and NYSE Euronext. It's more likely that the holding company MIH will outlive all of its subsidiary exchanges.
I would instead suggest either (a) a stub for MIAX Exchange Group to encompass everything else or (b) changing the page name for MIAX Pearl Equities to MIAX Exchange Group instead. Cara Wellington (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the other pages. Pinging @Scope creep: for an opinion as they did the BEFORE. Wondering if it should be merged into one of the exchanges already listed in Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share @Dclemens1971's position in Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIAX Pearl Equities). There is enough coverage to separate parent company from several of its MIAX Exchange group of subsidiaries, just like there is enough coverage for Minneapolis Grain Exchange. Merging the two would be difficult due to coverage and content differences. Cara Wellington (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling this over from the Pearl Equities discussion, I also wish to point out that there's a long history of precedence on how these have been handled once the subsidiary exchange has reached WP:GNG, even for exchanges that have shown lesser depth of independent references than MIAX Pearl Equities has demonstrated. For example, but not limited to:

Exchanges frequently change ownership and this ends up becoming unmaintainable if you're constantly merging them upstream to their parent even after they've established any level of content independence.

That's why I strongly recommend a Keep over a merge. Cara Wellington (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it details the significant impact of the company on the financial markets, including the operation of multiple exchanges such as MIAX Options, which influence trading and market stability. Additionally, the company's innovative contributions to trading technology and its role in expanding the financial infrastructure warrant its inclusion as a notable subject on Wikipedia. --Assirian cat (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @Scope creep can withdraw their nomination to end this more quickly? I note that they had already done that for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIAX Pearl Equities which was nominated at the same time and for similar reasons, and further they seem to have been satisfied after this revision.

Maybe you can assist with me with what I was looking for above. Can you point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? References for this particular entity, not the others.

Look at the sources I linked in my 6 May post above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dclemens1971. Cara Wellington (talk) 02:37, 20 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.