Talk:FPT Software

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 July 2025. The result of the discussion was merge.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Vietnam Low‑importance Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. fonchann (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The file LogoFSO1.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the Commons file description page. Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Connected contributor

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. fonchann (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Some proposed changes

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Please post the specific changes you want to make

• Information to be added or removed: General information, information is outdated
• Explanation of issue: information is outdated
• References supporting change: https://www.fpt-software.com/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonchann (talk • contribs) 04:22, January 28, 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Fonchann: I am closing this request as declined because you did not post the specific text you want to add or change in the article. You can open a new request below by following the instructions at Template:Request edit/Instructions. If you have any questions please post at the WP:HELPDESK. Thanks and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page for FPT Software

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge as part the AfD, but to maintain separate articles for now; editors should feel free to go back to AfD if they still have concerns. Klbrain (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi. My name is Thuy Truong and I work for FPT Software. A recent discussion led to a consensus to merge this page with the one on the parent company, FPT Corporation. However, only US-based, English-language media articles were considered in that discussion.

FPT Software has ~$1 billion in revenue annually, but is based in Vietnam, and is not widely covered by US-based, English language press. I was hoping to get an opinion from an impartial editor on whether books and/or in-depth articles in Vietnamese press[1][2] meet the standard for a page. Naturally, if the page is kept, it would need to be stubbed per WP:TNT to address the promotionalism issue.

Pinging @HighKing: for visibility, as an editor that voted for merge and is not retired. ThuyTA117 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @ThuyTA117:, thanks for the ping. Just to clarify, we need to find particular types of sources. Generally we need sources to support statements of fact or other descriptive text and (again, in general) those sources (only) need to be reliable. We use different criteria for sources used to *establish notability*. So, since this is a company, GNG/WP:NCORP applies and those guidelines require at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Looking at the sources you've provided:

• This book entitled "Global Diffusion and Adoption of Technologies for Knowledge and Information Sharing contains a case study which uses data collected from both primary and secondary sources, but the key is that it provides "independent content" by way of independent and detailed analysis. This is a good source for establishing notability.
• This article is detailed this website is a "regurgitator". The original article appears here and this website appear to be lined to the "Press Department" of a government ministry. It looks like PR to me and a key red flag is that is doesn't have an attributed author. I would not consider this source for the purpose of establishing notability, not WP:RS and not WP:ORGIND.
• This article is based entirely on an interview with the CEO, the article does not add any in-depth "independent content", I would not consider this for the purpose of establishing notability. Fails WP:ORGIND.

I did some more searching based on the leads you uncovered

• This book "Managing Knowledge for Global and Collaborative Innovations" also contains a very very similar case study, created by two of the same authors and looks at their case study from a slightly different angle. It is a different publication and omits one author therefore arguably should be classified as a different source. But personally, I would hesitate since it appears to be referencing the same case study.
• This book "Vietnam at a Crossroads" includes just about enough information to meet the criteria.

With two sources, the minimum standard is met, therefore, if you can improve the article and include those two sources, then ping me again. This will need to be looked at at AfD again, if we are to reverse the previous decision. Also be sure to familiarise yourself with WP:COI although so far I think everything is fine. Perhaps if you are clear about the types of sources, you might uncover others? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: Thanks so much for your help. You can find my proposed improvement that focuses mostly on the two citations you felt were good and removes all the promotional/poorly-cited content here. You suggested I improve the page and ping you, but I was hoping you would look at my proposed changes before I make any changes to the page itself, per WP:COI. ThuyTA117 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Pppery: restored the merge of this FPT Software page with FPT Corporation, noting that the consensus at Articles for Deletion to merge is superior to the consensus here on the Talk page. However, HighKing was the only non-retired editor that ever voted for the merge in the Articles for Deletion discussion, which is why I reached out to him on the Talk page. Is there some formal step that needs to be taken to show consensus has changed? @Klbrain: @HighKing: ThuyTA117 (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed draft

At some point in the conversation, @HighKing: and I had discussed replacing the current page with something that is more concise, neutral, and relies on the citations discussed for demonstrating notability. That draft is here for impartial editors to consider. ThuyTA117 (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi ThuyTA117, I've restored the page and reverted the merge. Feel free to continue to edit the article page here - you might want to merge the draft with what is here. You don't need to continue to "ask permission" unless you want someone unconnected to check that you are keeping to the guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @HighKing: I reviewed the current page for anything cited/missing from the proposed draft, merged some more of the content into the draft, and went ahead and replaced it. I think this is along the lines of your feedback but let me know if I did anything wrong. ThuyTA117 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi ThuyTA117, be careful that if you're making claims, your sources are fairly up to date. For example, the claim of being the largest employer is from a book over 13 years old (and does it *actually* say what you claim?) HighKing⁺⁺ 17:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]