Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azimo (3rd nomination)

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 keep. Closing as keep, GNG assumed to be met as the sources presented have not been challenged. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Azimo

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Azimo
• Articles for deletion/Azimo (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Azimo (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Azimo (4th nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Azimo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Deleted twice, most recently in May 2019, recreated five months later. The latest author, MSteinburg, makes much of new source Save on Send (more at Talk:Remittance#Remittance providers (MTOs)). But it's the blog of a corporate website. It has zero reputation for accuracy and fact checking. No books or journalistic sources cite it. It has none of the characteristics of a reliable source.

I agree with the prior nomination that the BBC piece is the best source. Beyond that, there are barely 100 words in The Gaurdian, an advertorial video WP:INTERVIEW produced by Reuters and posted on The Washington Post website, and half a dozen press-release-based announcements of capital raising of the sort explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH. My own WP:BEFORE convinces me this fails WP:NCORP. See also WP:CORPSPAM. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. As I stated in prior AfDs, this fails WP:NORG. Coverage outside press-releases is to sparse IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

OK. That was your historic conclusion. Does it still hold, given the current references and sources? gidonb (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:NORG. Specifically WP:ORGCRIT. gidonb (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Which sources do you feel are simultaneously: significant, independent, reliable, and secondary? --Worldbruce (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Many of the references count toward ORGCRIT. But let me focus on where we agree: the single one that you discuss at length is not good! gidonb (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Clymo, Rob (2020-10-30). "Azimo money transfer review". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.

     This is a detailed review of Azimo.

  2. Bown, Jessica; Brady, Niall (2013-02-23). "Money Made Easy: Your five-minute guide to... overseas money transfers". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.

     This is a detailed overview of how to use Azimo.

  3. Munro, Andrew (2020-12-31). "Azimo review. Get competitive rates and fast transfers — but not if you're a US resident". Finder. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.

     This is a detailed review of Azimo. The website has editorial guidelines about independence, objectivity, accuracy, and accountability.

  4. Cook, James (2019-08-26). "Payments firm Azimo plans £100m float - Payments sector still ripe for disruption, says Azimo chief". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  5. Gee, Rachel (2016-05-09). "How one brand is disrupting the finance industry". Marketing Week. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  6. Arnold, Martin (2018-05-29). "Rakuten invests in UK payments group Azimo". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  7. Ahmed, Murad (2015-06-15). "Remittances group Azimo raises $20m on valuation of $100m". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  8. Robinson, Duncan (2013-09-13). "Azimo to expand with new funding". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  9. Robinson, Duncan (2013-02-11). "Money app aimed at Facebook users". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  10. Waller, David (2016-05-18). "Start-ups help those coming to Britain to start over". The Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  11. Oxlade, Andrew (2013-02-13). "Azimo first to transfer cash using Facebook". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  12. Lunn, Emma; Collinson, Patrick (2013-04-12). "10 of the best money-saving apps". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Azimo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep This topic concerns the company and not the App. For that reason, articles which only contain reviews of the App but fail to provide in-depth information on the company fail the criteria for establishing notability of the company (WP:CORPDEPTH). But there are at least two references that appear to meet the criteria. This TechRadar reference provides information both on the company and on the software and meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Similarly, this review from finder.com also provides in-depth information on the company that meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Topic meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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.