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. postdlf (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FPX (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
FPX (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for deletion as (1) tagged for improved references since 2008 and none supplied. (2) Largely the product of a single editor who has not edited any other article [1]. (3) Appears to be solely a promotional piece. (4) Doesn't meet notability criteria WP:ORG as there is only trivial or incidental coverage of the company by secondary sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Note for the admin who closes the AFD. Zappy01's sole work on the project is this article see [2]. And I note from his talk page, this article was nominated for CSD when it was created. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is largely unreferenced and I note you removed the tag that has been there since 2008. Please don't remove the tag until that problem is addressed. Articles reads as a PR piece is definitely a reason to delete. Remove the PR material and there would be no article. #2 is very relevant as it appears wikipedia is being used for promotional purposes, which is not allowed. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the History section, which does indeed read like a PR piece and needs to be trimmed considerably, the article is well-referenced. Tag that section if you like, but the article overall has adequate citations in the areas that matter, particularly as a stub. You clearly have a bone to pick with this article, but please try to be objective. B.Rossow · talk 17:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, just now I actually took the time to check the few references provided for the History section and the vast majority of the info included there is drawn from the cited references. Perhaps every sentence doesn't have a footnote, but the information is found in the referenced material. Perhaps you'd like better (if redundant) footnotes, but the references are there if you actually take the time to read. B.Rossow · talk 17:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I clearly don't have any issues or a bone to pick and resorting to personal attacks like the above is not going to persuade me this article has merit in it worth saving; quite the opposite. Wikipedia is not free webspace for advertising a company. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a personal attack but a simple observation. If you would take the time to compare the article side by side with its references in two separate windows, as I did, you'd see that the citations cover the vast majority of the text in the article that you claim is unreferenced. I utterly fail to understand why you don't get that. On a more final note, I'm not at all interested in convincing you as your mind is clearly made up; I post this solely for the benefit of others who may be interested in taking more time to critically evalueate what's there rather than taking your [incorrect] word for it that it's "largely referenced." B.Rossow · talk 16:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, I will now note that I have done significant editing to the page to remove PR-sounding language and to add additional third-party references located via simple Google searches (which in itself should demonstrate the notability of the subject, if I can find numerous third-party articles referencing FPX in a matter of minutes). B.Rossow · talk 17:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And it still doesn't meet notability per WP:ORG. You know the continued personal attacks are quite likely to have the contrary effect to what you're trying to achieve. If you wish to provide a convincing argument to retain this article, that is best achieved by referring to policy rather than launching personal attacks against the nominating editor or by edit warring to remove tags that indicate improvement is required. Both behaviours are counter productive to your end goal. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:59, 19 March 2011 (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.
More