Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITransact

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITransact

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

How old is the company, does not make it notable. no references are found the existence of this company. there are 1000 of 50 years old company locally in a city, it doe not make any of them encyclopedic notable. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did find at least one source that could be used for notability.... although it isn't very flattering and this is now merely a subsidary of another company which doesn't even have a Wikipedia page of its own. Beyond self-published sources, I really don't see any other kind of coverage of this company and it certainly fails WP:ORG. If an article existed for Payroc, I'd say merge this content into that article.... but I don't think even that company has sufficient notability to even create a new article and similarly fails WP:ORG as well. The current range of sources makes it impossible to follow the WP:NPOV guidelines of even creating a reasonable article. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising and this alone, and that in fact is an excellent explanation for deletion, because the information and sources listed are exactly advertising the company; none of it becomes substance and nor should it be or we expect it to be, because it's all published and republished PR, by obvious advertising-only accounts. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful there and asssume good faith with the originator of this article. The other edits by this user seem to be pretty reasonable, unless you have access to other logs that aren't public. I agree that the information is mainly PR fluff, but you seem to be bordering really closely to a personal attack here against the editors of this page. I did perform a quick review of those edits to see if perhaps it was some sort of PR agency that threw this up, but it seems more like an employee or somebody close to the subject instead that also tried to participate on Wikipedia in other ways as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blantant advertising and fails WP:ORG per above. Chase (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertising needs to be deleted under WP:G11, not AfD. If it is promotional and can be saved, then replace the text per guideline. However, I don't find any sources that could be used to save it. The references are all brief mentions or local press. Being that it was just purchased by another company, I doubt there will be anything in the future to use either. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is G11 material. The company doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP at this time with not enough reliable sources covering the company in depth. I am also doubtful about the notability of the parent company here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2016 (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.