Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FPT Software

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 merge‎ to FPT Corporation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FPT Software

[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)

Promotional article on a company that has never cited any in-depth, independent sources and has almost never been substantially edited by independent contributors. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have found a computerweekly and bloomberg source which might convey notability. However as one (Bloomberg) is paywalled and the other requires an account I have not actually been able to check this. Most other coverage that I could find (using google news) do not appear to provide notability and/or are not actually independent from FPT Software. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 19:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the Computerweekly peace lacks independent content; most of the article is based on an interview with the founder. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason I can now access the Computerweekly article. I do largely agree with your opinion, while I do believe that there are large portions of independent analysis/commentary this is sufficiently hard to determine (due to the fact that some seeming quotes are not marked with “ ”). As such I would argue it should be excluded under WP:ORGIND not because it neccessarily lacks independent content but because If a source's independence is in any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 07:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: I understand the importance of Wikipedia’s guidelines on notability and the need for independent, secondary sources. To that end, I’ve identified and am incorporating several reliable, third-party sources that demonstrate significant coverage of FPT Software: Forbes – The Startup Behind Vietnam’s Tech Transformation (Jan 2024) – This article offers detailed, independent coverage of FPT Software’s role in Vietnam’s emergence as a global tech hub, including business impact, partnerships, and strategic growth. CIO.com – Is Vietnam the Next Source for CIO Inspiration? – This piece provides context for Vietnam’s IT services sector and features FPT Software as a key player, discussed from a CIO and enterprise IT strategy perspective. I fully acknowledge that some earlier content may have relied too heavily on primary sources or company-affiliated material. I am actively working to replace promotional language with a neutral tone, cite more secondary sources that provide independent analysis and ensure all significant claims are verifiable through reputable publications. FPT Software is widely recognized as one of Vietnam’s largest IT service providers, with global clients and significant media coverage. Rather than delete the article, I propose continued improvement to align fully with Wikipedia's content standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emlien75 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the sources, now for my analysis of them:

Forbes - This is written by a contributor, consensus amongst editors is that articles written by Forbes contributors are not reliable sources (see WP:FORBESCON) unless they also appear in a print edition which this doesn’t seem to.

CIO.com - Provides significant, seemingly independent coverage, and is not discussed at WP:RS/P.

Thanks again, Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 07:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Merge to FPT Corporation as per HighKing; While the article is entirely unsourced, there are a few sources which could help show notability. Namely the CIO.com source, which does count as a source to show notability; the computerweekly source, which at a stretch may contribute to notability but probably doesn’t; and the bloomberg source, which as yet no one has accessed and given opinions on meaning that it can’t help contribute notability right now.
As such I don’t currently think that notability can be demonstrated, but I believe that the bloomberg source could (if anyone accesses it and tells us what it contains) tip the balance in my eyes. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 18:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to FPT Corporation as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:25, 22 July 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.