Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FairFX


 * 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. No prejudice to creation of a neutral article if notability can be established from independent sources. Users connected with the company are advised to read WP:PSCOI. JohnCD (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

FairFX

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an advert. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The company is one of the main FX providers in the United Kingdom. We do not delete articles for being adverts unless they are irredeemable, and this article hasn't even been tagged POV or advert before nominating. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 20:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete An advertisement is precisely what it is. The claims above are not in the article, and have no visible sources. What the article does have is multiple references to its own website. Really this should have been removed by speedy. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too promotional.  Can always be recreated later with a more neutral tone and better sources.  This incarnation of the article is not viable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. And re-write from scratch. If we allow this then anyone peddling anything gets a free bump on Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with knowing about the company and its place in the market though from a NPOV (and hey, it's a financial outfit - it might have all sorts of info we can find about it that would be in the public interest to know... !) --gilgongo (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2014 (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.