Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Merchants

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Network Merchants

Network Merchants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

A disputed speedy; previous versions have been speedied as advertising/non-notable corporations. When I came to assess this for speedy deletion, the hangon tag led me to a discussion that seemed unresolvable; I suggested bringing the topic to AfD. Most of the references provided don't seem to me to be denotative of notability (merely of milestones in the company's history) but I'm insufficiently well informed to assess the few useful sources for reliability so I take no position here. Contributors to this discussion, and the closing admin, should note two things: (1) there's a suggestion that material has been removed from the talk page of the article, and it may be of interest to read it or return it, and (2) there seems to be a single-purpose account (SPA) with no other edits contributing to the latter part of the discussion which may indicate that some form of canvassing is at work. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, promotional page for a non-notable company. The author's reasons to keep are of the variety, "Prior to NMI, no other company had developed fraud screening software specifically geared towards online transactions." But we get this from every software company on AfD: "Don't delete! AverageSoft developed the first QGI763-based software to disenburble frambular network traffic!" If it's that important, people will cover it. I'm seeing a bunch of press releases, with nothing that could be called "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The article's references certainly don't offer anything more.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, Skimming across the aFd's I honestly dont see why this is marked. The sources cited are reliable. Yes, a few of them are press releases but not many. Majority of the citings are valid second/third party sources and this article is well written and informative. I did not get the feeling in any way that it was an advertisement. I can not believe this was tagged for lack of significance. I also just clicked the link on NMI that lead to authorize.net's wikipedia page and that page is horrible. Their cites are ridiculous and is 100% written like an advertisement. This makes no sense to me. I think this should 100% be kept. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.114.191 (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes this definitely helps, as did you adding all those links to Network Merchants yesterday. I'm glad you stumbled across this AfD!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, Of the ten references cited in the article: five are press releases annoucing services offered, three are press releases annoucing certifications available to anyone who wishes to use the third party system and are not notable, one is a company profile which appears to be either a perk of being a member of the association or paid for (it's an advertisement either way), and one is press releases noting a charitble act which is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Nine of the ten, if not all ten, were written by the company itself. Considering there are many trade publications, both online and in print, in their industry and none of them appear to have written anything noteworthy, or worth using as a reference in the article, about this company in its 11 year history I'd have to say they are not a notable company. stymiee (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a business that builds e-commerce payment gateways for companies located throughout the world that process credit cards, debit cards and electronic checks over an Internet Protocol (IP) connection. They can do that over the Internet? Since when?? AAR, I agree with Stymiee's review of the added sources and find nothing better myself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - I see nothing but press releases in the article, and when I conduct my own searches. This fails to establish notability as there is no independent coverage in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Iam the “author” of the Network Merchants article. Network Merchants is worthy of a Wikipedia page. Their patent pending projects and simply their pure historical background is enough to justify this page. I will find and update the reference section with other articles of Wikipedias liking. I highly recommend you keep this page, this company is with out a doubt an industry leader from iSpyFraud to their new 3 Step API that is about to be released. This company as stated by “Accounting4Taste” requires a very specialized area of knowledge. Anyone who understands the payment gateway industry will appreciate Network Merchants and their major contributions to the payment gateway industry and see their value to wikipedia. OnebadGTR (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Apparently you misread what I said. I didn't say that this assessment requires a very specialized area of knowledge -- in fact, I think that statement is incorrect. I said that *I* didn't have some specific knowledge, but I can add that I believe that specific knowledge is represented here in this process. I can be more specific; I was unable to decide whether the "Green Sheet" reference represented a reliable source. I found that there were no other reliable sources represented, as others have stated above. It is a misconception to think that any Articles for Deletion process on Wikipedia can only be adjudged by people with specialized knowledge. In fact, it's usually fairly easy to assess whether references are reliable, or present at all, such as is being assessed here; and if an article is so recondite as to be incomprehensible to the general public, then it is probably unsuitable for Wikipedia without significant re-writing. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - If, as claimed, the company is a notable payment gateway company, then I would expect to see this covered in business press somewhere. I've only found press releases. If there is any significant coverage, please bring it forward. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20081028005417&newsLang=en Not a press release from NMI OnebadGTR (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment That is a press release. Looks like a co-press-release. Still not an article or press coverage. stymiee (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Indeed. And I'll add that anything else you find on Business Wire will be a press release as the site's reason for existence is to publish press releases. Another of the large press release companies is PR Newswire. -- Whpq (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2010 (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.