Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurex

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. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Futurex

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I see nothing but press releases: not a notable outfit by our standards. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Texas. jolielover♥talk 17:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only SIGCOV I could find was about a different company in Scotland with an almost identical name (FutureX).4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is SIGCOV of this company, specifically with some of their partnerships with AWS (article here ) and Verifone (article here), and some coverage of their contributions to preparing for PQC as covered by CIO Inc..

The page just needs to go under copy revamp, adding more than just their personal press releases, such as the links I added here. Fxsbenne (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any sourcing in that group that would pass WP:ORGCRIT. AWS is a paid platform and lacks independence. The Security Info Watch piece on Verifone is based entirely on a press release and interview without any independent analysis or critique. The first CIO source is better but not sufficiently in-depth to indicate notability. The second CIO link is a generic webpage. 4meter4 (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also just for the record I am a a newbie to wiki editing! I do work for Futurex, and wanted to make some changes to bolster the page to make it compliant with the notability standards and to improve/update the information. Fxsbenne (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and updated the whole page, adding new sections such as their awards received and contributions to cryptography with CryptoHub and VirtuCrypt, as well as participation in reputable tech conferences RSAC and GITEX. I also added more pages their partners have created referencing Futurex's involvement with them. Fxsbenne (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apologies for being a newbie to this process, first AfD contribution. This page has been updated by the company to include 35+ SIGCOV links from external sources. I work for the company and would very much appreciate, and like to keep this improved version as Wikipedia is commonly searched by our customers and cited by search engines and Ai tools when people are searching for our company. We have significantly revised the content to be current, tried to avoid any over-promotional language, and cited capabilities, rankings, reviews, and awards from 3rd party articles and independent analysts. Please let us know if there are any corrections or revisions needed in order to be able to keep the page. MKrutikov (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primarily relies on and unreliable sources and lacks significant coverage from independent publications. The awards mentioned appear to be non-notable or promotional awards. Ninjastic Ninja (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources added by @Fxsbenne are short mentions, press releases, press-driven coverage, links to standards, duplicates or near-duplicates, etc. This appears to be reference bombing with cites that don't count towards notability. If there is sufficient doubt to relist then I would encourage FXsbenne to give their WP:THREE top three cites that meet SIRS. Oblivy (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2025 (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.