Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FXDialogue

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FXDialogue[edit]

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

Article appears to be an advert. Not notable despite size. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any coverage about this firm in reliable sources. Two of the three sources in the article are primary. The one independent source appears to be a regulatory body entry and as such, provides verifiability, bit not notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP. Just another Forex trying to promote its wares. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sole non-primary reference is the firm's regulatory entry (apparently now de-authorised). No evidence that it ever attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that one user created this article but did not increase its WP:N. Likely fails WP:CORP too. --Artene50 (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2014 (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.