Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fugenx

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fugenx

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

Non notable company. Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Yes, it's in those few listings, but among hundreds of companies, I'd only consider that significant if a secondary source felt it appropriate to report the accolades. I did a ProQuest firehose search of 50+ databases and only got minor and press release hits. The app company had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. None of its apps have received enough reliable coverage to warrant so much as a sentence... so the article can't even act as a holding area for barely notable apps. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 02:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Here are the citations which I found out about the company: [1], [2]. Mr RD (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is okay, but the first one isn't even an article... – czar 16:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source is very reliable and trusted. Mr RD (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about the same source, then yeah, it looks like less an article, and more like a headline with no real content.. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or move to userspace. The company seems official and legit but it might not be good enough for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchyte (talk • contribs) 07:11, 27 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte, as I've said about your !votes in other video game AfDs, "seeming official" is not a policy-backed argument and counts for nothing at AfD. The question is whether or not the article has reliable sources such that we can write an article about it. In this case, there's nothing. (Also I don't think the link to WP:LEGIT helps your point...) – czar 12:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although if kept, it should be moved to Fungenx Technologies, which appears to be its actual name. No in depth coverage whatsoever, no reliable sources, fails WP:NCORP. mikeman67 (talk) 15:51, 9 June 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.