Talk:BGC Group

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Contested deletion

If this page is what Wikipedia considers as 'merely an advert', then Wikipedia is screwed as a credible information resource. I won't waste my time looking for and talking about sources, as it's pretty clear the tagger didn't even bother to look before tagging it for speedy deletion as an 'unsaveable' piece of promotion, blithely ignoring what must have been a good hour's work on my part. Just delete the page for a 3rd time, blissfully ignoring the reasons why people keep trying to create it. Don't waste a minute wondering why the hell a NASDAQ listed company with offices around the world would give a shit about trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. Ridiculous. I created the article because I thought it was stupid beyond belief that Wikipedia couldn't tell me anything about the current title sponsor of a sports tournament being broadcast on BBC Two throughout the afternoon for two weeks here in the UK. We're not talking about some unimportant little startup here for Christ's sake. Jesus. --JoolsRun (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. If the company is so important, all you need to do is waste some more of your time and find the required reliable sources that prove that Wikipedia is indeed 'a credible information resource'. There's no reason why we would know any more about BGC than the article creators do, and why we should do it for them. Sorry, but it wouldn't be the first NASDAQ listed firm that got deleted for lack of sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a paid advocate for them, everything I know about BGC is already in the article, which I clearly stupidly thought was neutral enough to not be perceived as an advert, and and said enough to show it wasn't a complete non-entity. I don't doubt many company articles get deleted all the time, and on this evidence it's not likely to be because people considered the sources, but more likely tht they couldn't be arsed to look for them. This is strongly discouraged per WP:BEFORE, but whatever. JoolsRun (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that you are very familiar with some of our policies for a user with only 6 edits. I'm surprised you're not familiar with WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:RS, and WP:V. Please don't tell us we can't be arsed to look - you created the article. 'Before' also means asserting notability before creating the piece. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A NASDAQ listing, offices around the world and major sporting sponsorship is an assertion of notability, enough to avoid speedy deletion anyway. I know you don't want to do it, but those three facts are eminently verifiable with seconds of work, if you bothered. Don't waste your time telling me it's my job, as if I am supposed to know even what a reference is, let alone how to add one, because you're wrong - you'd know this if you educated yourself about the basic nature of this project. I contribute over at Commons and other projects, so yes, I know all about a few basic things over here in Wikipedia like GNG. Back in the day when people could create a starter article with one line and no references, the reaction was completely different to it is now. You are now collectively paranoid and unwelcoming as this episode has shown. It's your issue, not mine. You can look for references or not, not my problem now. You're talking to yourself basically, I'm already gone. JoolsRun (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one has bothered to check the fact that BGC is essentially what rose from the loss Cantor Fitzgerald suffered during the 9/11 attacks ( Evening Standard Article ), and therefore clearly a notable company (and not because of the massive loss of life) . Imavroukakis (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Where does Wikipedia stand on papers like New York Post as sources? It seems to fit WP:NEWSORG but is known more for its gossip than it's verifiability. Content in "Controversy" section is likely credible, but is based mostly on gossip news outlets. Also not sure what's going on with the irrelevant Investopedia reference. Tim.mcarthur (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BGC Partners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Unopposed; no minimum participation required. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BGC Partners → BGC Group – Company changed its name from BGC Partners to BGC Group Spencerfcloud (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.