Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DailyFX (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to FXCM. (non-admin closure) Arfæst ! 19:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DailyFX[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable & promotional. The references are apparently either general, mere listings, or its own website. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Although I'm not very enthusiastic about it. There are dozens of sites that offer FX information, but this seems to be one of the largest and best known. It was mentioned often in passing by introductory investment titles in Google Books as a place for useful information – news aggregation, charts, glossary, event calendar, etc. The cites were poor, e.g. the Handelsblatt cite with one post hoc comment by an analyst on why the market did something. However, I don't think the article is all that promotional. The company itself appears to be mainly a service for customers of its parent company, one of the largest FX brokers. Give the customers a reason to make an FX trade. The Alexa ranking and most of the footnotes could be trimmed. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a NN product of FXCM, and should be simply redirected to that article. The product has no individual notability as best I can tell. -- Y not? 17:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: obscure trading tool in a market where close to 90% of people lose money. While 'keep' criteria are weakly met, I think Wikipedia should err on the side of caution and not give this stuff too much "airtime". --Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.