Deletion of BGC Partners

Comment: Of the sources found by RichardOSmith, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/6984861/BGC-Partners-Tony-Verrier-treated-rivals-to-a-boys-weekend.html the Telegraph story is a reliable source, and http://www.ianfraser.org/is-bgc-partners-being-entirely-honest-about-its-mint-deal/ this Ian Fraser blog entry possibly is. (The others seem to be PR about their charitable activities.)  The current article, by contrast, doesn't resemble a story that has been written from what sources say at all, and instead contains only the usual |complete bollocks about being a ''global financial services company'' and goes on to tell you that they ''operate offices around the world''.  In any case, the current article text makes no case for inclusion, and the sources about their dodgy recruiting and buyout practices don't establish |significant effects on history, technology, or culture, or establish why this vaguely described holding or investment company should be |remembered until the end of time in an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:CB||WP:ORGIN||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: Very  weak  sources, including an unaudited blog by  Ian Fraser a freelance journalist, whose own and reliabiity appears not  to be asserted as 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I'm even less inclined to look for sources now than I was when it was so rudely demanded of me a while ago just 5 minutes after creation, but I will repeat here, I would be amazed if a NASDAQ company with offices around the world that is sponsoring a major sports tournament like the Masters snooker, did not have the required coverage out there for an article here, certainly up to the WP:GNG standard. I will note that at no point does it look like anyone has even bothered to look for them though, which clearly violates . I had a look at the company specific WP:CORP guideline, and frankly it's gobbledygook to me. I am dismayed that it now appears that posting simple factual information is automatically considered promotion/advertising in Wikipedia, but whatever. Do what you want with it, I really don't care. I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masters_%28snooker%29&action=historysubmit&diff=472283689&oldid=472282049 can't even get the Masters snooker tournament page into a state where it would be easy for readers to see who the hell the title sponsor is, and as we see here - there's probably no point looking for them under their own article either! Some encyclopoedia. It's ironic that the company seems to think that they are so well known that people will just know who they are from seeing their BGC logo on television. How little they know
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)