Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omise (Company) (2nd 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omise (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)

Following the previous AfD nomination designed to achieve a keep which was closed procedurally as WP:SK#1, this nomination is to delete for failing to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG on the basis of lack of significant independent coverage. There have been claims that sources are independent, however, I remain of the opinion that the vast majority are PR or "business-as-usual" corporate business which do not establish notability. Detailed analysis to follow as comment. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following on from the nomination, as indicated a review of the sources. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1 - company home page – not independent

2 - PR

3 - PR

4 - PR

5 - PR

6 - PR/Business as usual

7 - PR/Churnalism/question if source itself is reliable, blog?

8 - PR/Business as usual

9 - mention is passing

10 - business as usual, otherwise closely aligned reporting

11 - borderline… starts as PR, but then seems to develop into some form of editorial

12 - also borderline like 11, though not sure about the reliability of the source

13 - PR about funding round

14 - PR about funding round

Comment I would rate Thai Rath and The Nation (Thailand) as trustworthy news sources. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lerdsuwa: I am not questioning their "trustworthyness" per se - though I know there are debates in the English speaking community in Thailand how impartial The Nation and Bangkok Post are. Opinions differ. As far as this nomination is concerned, this is about those specific sources. I argue that all Nation sources in this articles are PR or based on PR and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. The indicator for this are phrases as follows which show close alignment without editorial verification: [1]: "According to the company...", "Managing director of OmiseGO Vansa Chatikavanij said the company plans...", "She believes the beauty of the OmiseGO network..."; [2]: "Omise, the region’s leader in online payment processing ...", "Omise said in a statement...", "Frederico Araujo, chief information officer at Omise said...", "Frederico added that PCI DSS is crucial...". There is essentially no editorial contents in those articles. Very much apparent PR rewrites. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The most in-depth appear with Thai Rath and The Nation (Thailand), these are strong reliable sources. I think together these constitute enough coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG. Don't WP:IDONTLIKE with your personal feeling. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MyanmarBBQ: Thai Rath mentions Omise once in the article - as one of 16 other payment processors. That's hardly "significant coverage" as WP:GNG requires. As outlined before, those Nation articles are essentially PR rewrites. WP:ORGIND states "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." This is not given on any of the articles I marked as "PR" above. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's considerable amount of coverage by the Bangkok Post[3][4][5] and tech news sites TechCrunch[6][7][8][9][10][11] and Tech in Asia[12][13][14]. While Jake Brockman describes some of these as "business as usual" reporting, I believe they contain analysis that is significant enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, considering Thai sources, has been profiled in the cover story of the October 2016 issue of Forbes Thailand (excerpt[15]). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering the above sources, especially the first-linked articles from the Bangkok Post and TechCrunch, and the Forbes Thailand story, I think the subject meets the WP:GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost all the referenes are either PR or mere mentions. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single source meets the criteria for establishing notability which are detailed in WP:NCORP. Despite the "Keep" !votes above, the criteria is not "considerable amount of coverage" or "strong reliable sources". They must also be "independent" as per WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Lapablo (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG --MA Javadi (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To clarify my above !vote, an analysis of some select sources:
- The Bangkok Post article Hitting pay dirt with payments ([3] above) is a by-lined in-depth profile of the company, covering from its beginnings to current operations. It is mainly based on interviews with the subject, but this is easily true of all news reporting.
- Tech Crunch article Omise lands $17.5M Series B to expand its Stripe-like service in Southeast Asia ([6] above) is a news report that provides a good amount of background information on the subject. The contextual information in the article, e.g. in the passage, "The startup is focused on tapping the potential of e-commerce in Southeast Asia. Right now, estimates suggest less than five percent of the retail in the region is done online but, with more than 600 million people in the region and an increasingly affluent middle class, there’s a huge opportunity for growth..." which goes on to describe the field and the subject's competitors, clearly show that this is a piece of independent reporting and analysis per WP:ORGIND.
- The Forbes Thailand article ปั้นช่องทางจ่ายเงินออนไลน์แบบ Omise (excerpt, in Thai) is also an in-depth profile that covers everything about the company. It is presented as the cover feature article of the monthly print local edition of Forbes magazine.
While the co-founders are quoted multiple times in these articles, this does not necessarily make the articles primary or non-independent sources; all journalism is reporting on primary sources. The journalists' interviewing the source, compiling the information, and writing stories out of it, mean the result should be considered independent secondary sources, IMO. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response With respect, it is a common mistake to say that articles such as the ones you mention meet the criteria for establishing notability. They don't. WP:ORGIND explains in great detail what is required in terms of independence and states 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.
  - The Bangkok Post article is a classic example of churnalism where it "profiles" a company. It has all the traits including market size, founding details/founder profile, (bonus: little interesting story on the early struggles), the "problem" being addressed, funding, and an future-looking note to finish. The issue is that it is all based exclusively on an interview with company executives. It fails WP:ORGIND as there is zero "original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking" that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the subject.
  - The Techcrunch article is largely based on a press release and also fails WP:ORGIND as none of the content shows signs of "original and independent opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking" that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the subject.
  - The Forbes article in Thai is another example of churnalism with the same formula of photo, founding details/founder profile, description of problem, funding (bonus: graphic provided by the company to explain their funding), future looking note to finish. Again, nothing original that can be attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company.

While it looks exciting that a company was profiled in Forbes or Techcrunch, about 100% of the time these articles are churnalism and fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:52, 22 May 2019 (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.