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. j⚛e decker^talk 05:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NetTradeX (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)

Appears to fail WP:CORP, as I was unable to find any non-trivial WP:SECONDARY coverage. The only source cited in the article is a press release, and the only non-press-release sources I could find were articles that indicated that a chart in the article was generated with this company's software (and notability of the company is WP:NOTINHERITED from their software anyway). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can't even tell if this is an article about the corporation or the software. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I still can't quite tell what whether subject of this article is the company or the product, but my Google searches have convinced me that neither are notable. This is specialized software that would not be given coverage by mainstream computing publications, but I would at least expect the company to show up somewhere outside of press releases. As far as I can tell, it does not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It looks like NetTradeX is a currency trading software platform, developed by NetTradeX corp, which is supported/owned by IFC Markets [1]. While the software has been covered at places like CNet and Investing.com, the contents are simply company supplied descriptions and feature lists. Similarly, articles at Reuters and PRWeb are simply press releases. I was unable to find any independent reliable sources for this product. Without independent RS, this article fails notability per WP:GNG and cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Whether the article is about the company or the product, it fails WP:ORG and WP:PRODUCT based on available reliable sources that cover the subject in any depth.- MrX 15:00, 26 April 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.