Deletion of HYCM

Comment: A number of the article's sources lack depth () and only mention employees of the company or charitable contributions, both of which subjects carry their own notability which is |not inherited by the subject company. Probably fails  as the current article serves to promote certain aspects of the company
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:PROMOTION)

Comment: a run-of-the-mill financial service company. Fails  and . Copy is highly promotional and touts the owner's charitable donations. Nothing stands out about this company, so "delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: I've decided to make an entry into this discussion, primarily because this page exhibits a clearly notable company that people will no doubt source good information from. As for  , I can see that the page goes into necessary detail to establish the basics to satisfy the underlying principles, but does not warrant deletion. While doing some research on what and what not satisfied , I found an interesting list that a few people on this thread are failing to recognize. Here are a few examples of pages that do not satisfy its requirements
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Entirely promotional, fails , no indications of notability. References fail the criteria for establishing notability as they are either PRIMARY sources (or entirely based on PRIMARY sources such as PR or company announcements) or mentions-in-passing. A common misunderstanding frequently encountered at AfD and repeated here is that if an "independent" source publishes an article, it meets the criteria for notability. This is not the case. A source may be "independent" and print a company announcement. The article itself must be "intellectually independent" - simply publishing a company announcement with no independent opinion or analysis fails the criteria for establishing notability. Not one of the references here meet the criteria and is only indicative of a functioning marketing department at the company
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPIP)

Comment: the sourcing here utterly fails , , and is very |run-of-the-mill. The Forbes sourcing is from a contributor: i.e. someone who is not on their editorial staff and uses the Forbes platform to publish their blog entries. That doesn't count as a reliable source. BusinessWire looks to be a reprint of some press release of some sort, which would fail , and the Finance Magnate entry is simply a run of the mill announcement, which wouldn't be considered towards notability per . There's nothing to see here. Rather boring Forex company. If you don't buy the notability argument, look at : this is a promotional directory entry. Both of which are enough for deletion even if the GNG is met (which it isn't). See  and  on the NOT point
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:MILL||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NOT||WP:N||WP:DEL14)

Comment: this appears to be a  platform for forex trading.  None of the references seem to be sufficient for ; if any of the keep voters would like to give one or two references they feel are substantial non-neutral coverage, please do so. I see mostly trivial references, regulatory paperwork, and press releases on BusinessWire
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL||WP:GNG)

Comment: Passes  have enough coverage and is sourced well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources (and it currently doesn't contain enough) to show that it passes  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH)