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. Mz7 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortrade[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. This has all the hallmarks of a paid promotional article. The only source for the article is the company's own web site. There are inline external links pointing to the company's products and services while the text is promotional in tone with lines line "All Fortrader Trading Platforms include a range of technical indicators to help online traders achieve better results.", Jbh ^Talk 01:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 01:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 01:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:COMPANY. I can't find anything besides company website links and the occasional mention on brokerage review websites. Certainly no news coverage. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company, sourced to its own regulatory registration and a website listing. No evidence found that this is more than a run-of-the-mill company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G11. The declined speedy deletion on this was a bad call. This is unambiguous advertising that reads like it was taken straight from a marketing pamphlet. All it is missing is the email address of the sales department. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete the original speedy nomination was correct, and was incorrectly removed. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 - Blatantly promotional in tone & content. No justifiable reason for declining the Speedy Deletion - is this a competency issue? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 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.