Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbit Remit

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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit Remit[edit]

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

Financial services company which appears to fail the WP:GNG. There is a single reference with in depth coverage and that's an interview based piece with no sign of independent research on the part of the journalist, so not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 05:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could be a case of too soon. Only the Stuff article comes up and as you say, hardly a research piece. NealeFamily (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the original contributor, I've seen the strength of the company by way of its global reach - the authenticity of the company is hardly in question. I'm of the view that far too few New Zealand companies are represented on Wikipedia based on the fact that people don't take the time to curate pages or that the company pages don't score high with regards to independent research or digital PR exposure - which can quite often be bought publicity space anyway. How many financial institutions are there in New Zealand and how many of those are on Wikipedia? Not many.--S-birkman (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is not whether Orbit Remit deserves an article on wikipedia, nor whether more NZ companies should have articles on wikipedia, but whether there are enough independent sources with in depth coverage to make article viable. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the Stuff article to be independent and an in-depth research article on the company. Although the resource here from justice.govt.nz is not an in-depth research article, it surely adds to the list of independent sources, where the prominence of the company can be noted as the New Zealand government states them as the sole recommended provider for making payments from overseas.

This is also the case for workandincome.govt.nz as seen here, and as per New Zealand Inland Revenue Department's website, as quoted, "Customers living in Australia or the United Kingdom can easily make repayments using Orbit Remit, a money transfer system that lets people make repayments to Inland Revenue through internet banking at no charge. Borrowers living in other countries can make payments using a credit or debit card, telegraph transfer, foreign bank draft, personal foreign cheque, or by foreign postal order or money order.", there is no doubt that these federal government departments are as independent a source as you can get.

Another independent source where research was undertaken by the journalist to compare the top international money transfer companies based on the best rates (where in-depth research highlights rates, fees & comparison data) & return when sending money to the US can be seen here and although the article isn't solely focussed on one company, it does confirm that independent research was undertaken to reach their verdict that Orbit Remit be ranked in second place after WorldFirst and before CurrencyFair, PayPal and Western Union respectively.--S-birkman (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with the company at this stage is that it does not have coverage at a level that brings it up to the standard to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, from the comments above I am worried that you may be in breach of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Take a read of both of these sections as you should find them helpful. It is quite probable that over time the company may reach the appropriate level and that this article likely falls into the Wikipedia:Too soon category. My suggestion is in order to preserve it that you place a copy in your sandbox (see Wikipedia:Sandbox for an explanation of how to set it up. If you get stuck let me know and I can help). If the outcome of this debate is keep then you can delete it, otherwise if the outcome is delete at least your work is preserved and can be revisited as time goes on. NealeFamily (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds of WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG NealeFamily (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly no indication of notability, and clearly promotional. TRhe refws are almost entirely just listings. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 18:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't an advertising service, and this article reeks of being a promotional page. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 19:16, 28 January 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.