Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenlight (financial technology company)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlight (financial technology company)[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP, even a case here for G11. Routine announcements, promotional content, company website. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:CORPDEPTH and coverage being paid sourcing and a limited audience. I checked out several of the sources which appear to be niche services to financial industries:

- TechCrunch is a promotional site with a membership fee. "...We help founder and startup teams get ahead..."

- PaymentsJournal is an industry website that solicits 700-1000 word articles.

- VentureBeat is also a membership site that invites readers to contact reports and hosts guest posts and sponsored posts.

- IBS intelligence is also a client-service site providing "business strategies for financial services clients worldwide.

Two non-specialized sources are the Seattle Times which gives it passing mention and a Forbes piece written by a "contributor". Forbes contributors, as opposed to Forbes staff writers, is considered Generally Unreliable sourcing as it lacks fact checking and editorial oversight. These contributor pieces are often self-published. (See WP:FORBESCON.) Blue Riband► 17:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RS/P, VentureBeat is "generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games", meaning that it could be used within the article. dksn123 (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VentureBeat and TechCrunch most certainly can be considered reliable for notability. They are harder though because you have to read through and make sure it is not marked as a sponsored article or just a reprint of a press release. The TechCrunch article in the current page is NOT reliable as it is an interview and would fail WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of in-depth coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT including this from Forbes (written by staff writer), this from WSJ (looks like a routine announcement based on the headline but contains in-depth information about the company), and this from CNET (also written by staff writer). --CNMall41 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SERIESA. Coverage is "company raises money" and "company launches product", and it's just not notable. FalconK (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is routine. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 22 October 2022 (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.