Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FX solutions


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete.-- Kubigula (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

FX solutions

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a foreign exchange dealer, whose text was originally mainly copied from the company's own press released. After trimming the worst of the marketing speak, there is no assertion of notability and zero reliable sources to provide verifiability. There were a series of "references" which either did not mention FX Solutions at all, were simply republished press releases or in one case was a "review" of dubious reliability. None of them met our standards for a reliable source. Unless this company can be shown to have some level of independent notability, this appears to be simply a case of attempting to use Wikipedia for pormotion. I suggest we Delete Gwernol 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why delete? There is nothing wrong with this article. If it requires a change it should be enhanced, not being deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.117.206.81 (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fx Solutions is one of the world's largest Forex companies, estimated at half a billion dollars. I'm trying to categorize this area in Wikipedia, I've revised the sources and if you have any ideas on how to do it better I'd love to hear them. There's no need to delete it so quickly, I'll improve whatever you find not good enough. Regards, Matthew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forexer (talk • contribs) 12:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide reliable, independent sources for the claims that FX Solutions is "one of the world's largest forex companies"? Verifiable sources would help a lot in establishing the notability of this company. Thanks, Gwernol 03:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - per above two comments. Notability per WP:CORP is clearly established: in articles by such sources as the Wall Street Journal and MarketWatch. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately those don't appear to be adequate sources, for the purposes of establishing notability. They are either reprinted press releases (e.g. ) or are not independent of FX Solutions (e.g. ) or are trivial mentions of FX Solutions (e.g. ). What I don't see in these results are articles about FX Solutions rather than articles about other subjects that happen to mention the company. Per WP:N these are not sources that establish the notability of the subject. Gwernol 03:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom for complete lack of verifiability and third-party sources. --MCB (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete; what little sources are provided are either trivial or not independent of the article topic. As it stands, the article is quite unverifiable.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a business directory. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT.--Hu12 (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.