Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FFX Tools

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FFX Tools

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

Declined at AfC a few times, and previously speedied twice. I can't see that sufficient notability is shown, and I wouldn't think the referencing does much for it. Peridon (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 16:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ssт✈^(discuss) 16:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refs are a smokescreen. I checked most of them, they are trivial, primary or press releases. Nothing to establish notability. Too many refs to speedy reliably but going the same way. Szzuk (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I clearly mentioned several times at AfC, simply nothing to suggest a considerably better article. Notifying tagger Ueutyi and AfCers Wikiisawesome and Thparkth. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant and advertisement-like. Ueutyi (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as I gave when declining the last draft, which as far as I can tell is almost identical to the current article. "Unfortunately I do not feel, based on the external sources referenced in the article, that the company would be found to be notable if nominated for deletion. Most of the sources provided are inadequate for establishing notability (e.g. Companies House listing, Trusted Reviews etc). The few real news articles have a commonality of language which suggests they were largely written based on the same press release - there is no real depth of coverage." Thparkth (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2015 (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.