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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FxPro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

apparently promotional article with extensive contributions by now-banned editors DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. Just (likely paid) WP:ADVOCACY. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam, advertising, advocacy, PR - it really doesn't matter what you want to call it, but I'll call it marketing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I agree that a lot of it was promotional, but this has been cleaned up and the person responsible banned, the company is clearly notable with FX industry based on references and searches and I suggest we keep it but stub it back to remove promotional material. Sargdub (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above The number of ref's could give the mistaken impression of significant, in depth coverage-- but not. Does not meet GNG.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the FxPro article - I just needed it, used it, it was helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirginiaL (talk • contribs) 15:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! There's nothing there you cannot find on the corporate web page. The issue here is notability of the subject.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have edited the article before. I found new references. I understand that some of the ones that are currently in the article should be removed. Could you see these references to see if the article can remain?

Http://www.icawards.co.uk/investment-awards-2010/ Forex investor of the year - Investors Chronicle Http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/sport/watfordfc/watfordfcnews/15346988.Watford_seal__largest_sponsorship_deal_in_club_history__with_FXPro/ Http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/brokers/fxpro-announces-launch-of-supertrader-platform-for-copy-trading-available-initially-through-one-entity/ Http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/fxpro-unveils-a-ground-breaking-strategy-building-tool-512444851.html Https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fxpro-ctrader/id838925664?Mt = 8 Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/12155078/FXPro-holds-off-flotation-plan-on-market-chaos.html Https://www.forexfraud.com/forex-broker-reviews/fxpro-review.html If they seem appropriate, I would arrange the new text in a neutral and non-promotional way Mcmikhedoff 11:20, 23 Juin 2017, UTC

• Comment Note that there is an open job on Upwork offering cash for saving this article [1]. Rentier (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: Never seen the like. Post to WP:ANDlohcierekim (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to WP:COIN. Rentier (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think they may just about cross the notability threshold. Added some recent developments to the article. Some have been mentioned above and should qualify. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not the issue here (though I'm not seeing it). We strongly discourage COI editing; the only practical way we have of doing that is to undo COI edits. Here the COI apparently goes right back to the first version. Nuke it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only in-depth coverage in a WP:RS reliable source is one Daily Telegraph article [2], and it's about FxPro deciding not to try an IPO. John Nagle (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I`m not a paid editor, I'm part of the company. And I published a project in Upwork to get advice on how to make our contribution so that the article is not deleted. I point it out clearly in the text of the project in Upwork, I´m not looking for a promotional text, I want to comply with all Wikipedia rules, that is why I have not touched the text, I have looked for new references and I have proposed them here, and I have also proposed contributing with the text. Thanks to the editor who took two references that I contributed to improve the article. If there is any way on how can proceed with the page so that it stays live - please let me know. Mcmikhedoff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 23 June 2017 (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.