Talk:UKForex

Turning page into redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kurt Coleman said on Sargdub talk page:

Dear Sargdub,

I work for UKForex and noticed last week that our Wikipedia page had been redirected to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ozforex. The rationale behind this change was “turn into redirect as all part of one company and this subsidiary is not notable in its own right”.

Like most companies, we have a ‘parent’ company – in this case OzForex – however we have our own brand identity in the UK & Europe as UKForex. I find it a little unfair that you have come to the conclusion that our brand is not notable when we are one of the UK’s biggest deliverable foreign exchange providers. What’s more, our page was informative, relevant, fair and regularly updated.

We take a lot of pride in our business (including our brand-specific Wikipedia page) and would appreciate it if you could please change this back. If you need proof of our significance as a brand please let me know.

Thanks

Kurt Coleman — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtUKForex (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sargdub,

Have you had a chance to consider this? It would be great to get a response from you so we can sort this out.

Thank you

Kurt Coleman — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtUKForex (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about your comment, yes in some cases subsidiaries of companies warrant their own page, but only when they are significant in their own right and are unique from their parent. UKForex does exactly the same business as the parent company OzForex and the subsidiary has no unique or notable difference to the parent except for the localised name. The content such as history repeated information from the parent company which is already covered on the OZForex page and not specific to UKForex, and so I see no strong reason to have a separate page. A redirect is the most sensible solution unless you can identify a major differences that makes UKForex unique and notable in its own right as I can find no evidence of that.

Wikipedia has some specific guidelines on Conflict of Interest and as an employee of a company you may have a conflict on this page. Please review the guideline WP:COS which may help you understand how to deal with this conflict. I appreciate that you want to look after your brand but Wikipedia is not an advertising media or somewhere to promote a business (see WP:NOTPROMOTION) and so you need to understand that a page is for information that is supported by third party references. I have added a bit of regulatory information about the UK subsidiary to the OzForex page which hopefully covers the unique information about the subsidiary and have moved the page back to a redirect. Sargdub (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sargdub,

Hope you are well.

Unfortunately I disagree with your comments that UKForex is "not unique and notable” and also the resulting redirect you have again added. We are indeed unique and notable for the following reasons:

• FCA-regulated: UKForex Limited hold a Financial Conduct Authority license (FRN: 521566) in the UK for the provision of payment services. We also hold a certificate of registration for Money Laundering regulation (Registration number: 12219180) and are covered by regulations administered by HM Revenue & Customs.

• Physical presence: we have an office in the City of London: 85 Gracechurch St, London EC3V 0AA.

• Independent brand/ identity: yes, we are part of the OzForex Group but we are an independent brand that has its own history, business story, achievements and challenges as a business. UKForex gets plenty of coverage in the media. Below are some recent examples. I can supply more if you need.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/european-inflation-to-stay-weak-edwards-3yLj4rUdTWKhNYsw1sWCCQ.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10601332/UK-economy-grows-0.7pc-in-fourth-quarter-economist-reaction.html http://www.forexcrunch.com/markets-fidgety-with-ukraine-situation-up-in-the-air/ http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ftse-100-falls-ahead-of-uk-gdp-data-2014-02-26 http://www.bloomberg.com/video/ukforex-sees-pound-in-short-term-push-toward-1-65-BFJIauS~TuCvqT2LL7xLvw.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/kostaperic/2012/06/25/faster-better-cheaper-ways-to-transfer-money-chapter-2-ukforex/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10601332/UK-economy-grows-0.7pc-in-fourth-quarter-economist-reaction.html

UKForex also have some large partners that promote our service. The FT is a good example of this: http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Currencies - (UKForex hosts the currency converter on their site).

• Completely different market: the UK is the largest centre for foreign exchange trading in the world, making our market the most competitive. This makes UKForex very different to OzForex – notably the challenges we face to remain competitive within the tough UK environment. Every week there are new FX providers coming into the UK market and the fact that UKForex continues to grow and remain one of the UK’s largest non-bank providers is testament that we are unique and notable.

Hope the above gives you some insight into UKForex and how we are unique and notable. All of our customers in the UK know us as UKForex. We'd very much like our page back so can you please reconsider your redirect?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards Kurt — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtUKForex (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kurt

I appreciate your view, and this is one of the reasons that Wikipedia discourages editing by those with a conflict of interest as working for a company will make it seem very notable, but you have to try and and take a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view when assessing notability. I appreciate that UKForex is a separate subsidiary and has an office and is licenced in the UK, but you would expect that from any financial company subsidiary in a different country, that does not make it unique and notable. I agree the brand is localised, but I don't see that this makes it different, many large companies localize their services but that does not make the localized version unique or notable in its own right. The OzForex company provides the same services under all its brands and UKForex appears as no exception. I would suggest you look at the guideline on company notability WP:COMPANY as none of the points you made help to establish it as notable. Note that the guideline says that "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" all the links except for one you have provided fall under this category as it was simply somebody at UKForex commenting on stories unrelated to the company itself. Ozforex as a whole is only marginally notable as a company under Wikipedia guidelines and its subsidiaries seem even less notable. I guess if you feel that UKForex is the major part of the business, we could remove OzForex and move the content to UKForex and put redirects in for OzForex instead. The OzForex page covers the UK subsiduary's regulation and apart from very trivial information the history for UKForex had little to add to the company history.

The information on UK market vs Australian market may be interesting, but that could be added to the OzForex page, by breaking down the company markets and indicating the UK is the most competitive that the company operates in. However it is important to keep any content like that written in a Neutral point of view with secondary references. Sargdub (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Closed as Retain as a redirect, as there does not appear to be any support for an individual article except from employees of the company. Number 5 7 10:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Should the page be redirected to Ozforex, or have it's own article. KurtUKForex (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

Redirect - The sources provided in the discussion above are all incidental and there is no significant coverage of this company. Therefore UKForex does not meet the requirements of WP:COMPANY and should not have its own WP page. In fact, I looked at the WP article for the parent company, Ozforex, and its notability is marginal. Almost half the sources for that article are FOREX web sites. No question in my mind, redirect is the correct procedure for UKForex.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:44, 2 April 2014 (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.