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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research exchange ltd[edit]

Research exchange ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Nothing here that I can see gives any sense of notability. One ref is unavailable, another behind a paywall, but those that are both visible and relevant appear to be press releases or of tangential relevance. Nothing here convinces me of motability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles behind paywalls removed. Inserted reference to trade bodies and industry bodies discussing impact of research unbundling and movement of investment research from free to paid for on research exchanges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.185.87 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero hits in news. Established 2014 per Companies House. Seems to be a startup that's not yet notable. Fails WP:CORP. John Nagle (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Operates under the trading name RSRCHX and RSRCHXchange. Over 35 mentions in google news search for RSRCHXchange [[1]]. And 7 articles for RSRCHX [[2]]. Perhaps rename page to RSRCHXchange trading name rather than UK registered company name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.201.255 (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment refs to articles behind paywalls should not be removed, should be reinstated per assumption of good faith, just because an article is not easy to access does not mean it should be discounted.Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing convincingly better, still questionable for better applicably notable improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing but WP:ROUTINE coverage and press releases. Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 15 March 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.