Talk:FX Global Markets

Dear All,

I noticed that the page FXGM was moved to FX Global Markets. I would like to follow Wikipedia guidelines explained here below (in Italic) to comment on this change and to suggest to change it back again. In fact, the company recently changed its business name from FX Global Markets to FXGM, as you can see from the official website of the company: http://www.fxgm.com/ I cannot undo the change and move the change back to the old title, because I don't have an autoconfirmed account but I hope that someone can help me making this edit.

Thanks a lot.

Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale. Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article.

Stefano Rossi Colantuono (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

---

FX Global Markets → FXGM – FXGM was the original name of this brand, and we should revert to that because recently the brand name has changed from FX Global Markets to FXGM. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Stefano Rossi Colantuono (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Perhaps worth relisting again? But it certainly should not be moved on the rationale given so far, which completely ignores the article naming policy and instead makes the common mistake that the official names essay specifically addresses. MWOT is my reaction, in fact I've just added this excellent example to that page! Andrewa (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Nom appears to be a single issue account. That of course doesn't mean they should not be welcomed like any newbie, and their boldness encouraged, but we should also check the obvious possible COI. Andrewa (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've also created an essay page at Wikipedia:Corporate identity which might be helpful with similar requests. Andrewa (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should we delete this article?

After carefully looking for reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I could not find anything but forums saying that this website might/may be fraudulent. (WP:N) A recent documentary broadcast on French Television (France 2) confirms that this website and the company are fraudulent. Please advise.

• No Significant coverage
• No Sources Independent of the subject
• No Reliable Sources

The French version of the article is already under deletion review. Puda (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)