Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PayTabs

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 moved to draft space. This is a very close call. There are four editors for keeping (including the nominator) as opposed to three for deleting, which would normally constitute an absence of consensus. However, the weight of policy is on the part of the editors advocating deletion, as the sources here are too weak to reach Wikipedia's standards for corporate entities. Notably, several of the editors who would prefer to keep the article do so on the basis that the article can be improved. Moving it to draft space allows for the opportunity for the article to be improved to the level of Wikipedia standards. Therefore, the article will be moved to Draft:PayTabs, and will either be improved there, or deleted if abandoned. I am also locking the mainspace title to insure that administrative review precedes any restoration to mainspace. bd2412 T 20:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PayTabs

[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)

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kauffman. Thanks for the points.

I believe there is significant coverage by independent articles. There is also a lack of information of Fintech companies in the middle east. Hence the proposal to add this article.

Please do let me know what needs to be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkshots (talk • contribs) 23:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raju, please do clarify whats missing within the required sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkshots (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional.Deb (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough there to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Technically it is WP:NCORP that applies, but the Zawya/Reuters and Arab News sources at a minimum look of good quality and sufficient to pass NCORP even without looking too far afield. It it a little promotional (though not wildly so) but certainly has encylopedic worth - I wouldn't say that either WP:DEL4 or WP:G11 applies. Thus promo tones should be dealt with by editing, not deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously relevant. The article can evidently be improved. Let's do that. I despise Wikipedians that are too lazy to improve an existing article and would rather delete everything they don't wish to fix.--Keyboard Therapy (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Keyboard Therapy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference 1,6,7 and 10 are not valid as per Wiki standards. When I google, a lot of coverage pops up. So I think it may satisfy independent coverage criteria. But its clearly promotional. Not sure if the right disclosure was done. Globe2trotter (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is very clear to me that not a single one of the references in the article meet the criteria for establishing notability and fails WP:NCORP. By any interpretation, the references fall into the broad categories of run-of-the-mill company profiles e.g. Bloomberg, Forbes (specifically mentioned in the examples of WP:ORGCRIT failures), company announcements (Arabnews, Reuters, etc, fails WP:ORGIND) and inclusion into top 10 type lists (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). Can any of the Keep !voters above (Govvy, Nosebagbear, Keyboard Therapy and Bkshots) please point out which references they believe meet the criteria for establishing notability and help me understand why the reference does not fail WP:NCORP. Be aware that NCORP describes the criteria for references and clarifies that "reliable independent sources" means that the references must be intellectually independent and not rely on company-produced material or interviews/quotations, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi HighKing thanks for the detailed response. Perhaps i'm missing something here myself. I'm doing a bit of research into the company, and there seems to be quite a bit of independent coverage, including a video piece done by CNN on the company.^[1]. Furthermore, if we are so technical about the sources meeting WP:NCORP, do please explain how pages such as Mumzworld, Fetchr, Talabat.com, Souq.com are able to publish pages with similar sources. If you are to get this technical, I assure you there is a lot of content on Wikipedia that will not make the mark. To conclude, I do assure you that all of the above mentioned companies, including the article in question do meet one strong criteria of WP:ORGIND, and that is that they all display clear signs of ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization. Keyboard Therapy (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://arabic.cnn.com/tech/video/2017/01/31/v12294-ss-310117-paytabs

Response A couple of things. "Independent coverage" is not the same thing as "Intellectually independent coverage" which is what is required. Interviews with company officers or connected partners (whether written or video) are not considered to be intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. I've AfD'd those other two articles, they also fail, but the argument that "Other Stuff Exists" has no weight here. Finally, policies and guidelines exist for a reason - so that everyone can clearly see the criteria for establishing notability. Some parts may have a looser interpretation but notability is generally evenly interpreted. If a topic is genuinely notable, at least two references should be available. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @HighKing: I wouldn't pick one reference, the way I see it, is, each reference is just a brick in a wall, it's not until you combine them all together for to see the overall outcome. PayTabs certainly are not Microsoft or Apple with assets of billions with technology, I am only just scraping it over for WP:NCORP, even know I said keep, it's more a weak keep. Govvy (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Unfortunately your interpretation of policy and guidelines is not the generally accepted interpretation. We need at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Bear in mind that the criteria for establishing notability does not apply to all sources within an article - other sources that might not meet the criteria may be used as citations for facts and other information. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when is "Intellectually independent coverage" required to establish notability? There is clearly significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that is what is required. Rathfelder (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response It has always been this case, just that editors continually confused the interpretation of "independent coverage". It does not mean that the publisher has no corporate link with the topic company, it means that the contents of the published article contains original description/analysis/opinion/etc and not just repeating company produced content. This was clarifed in March and WP:NCORP updated accordingly. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 3rd round startup, last round was 20 million dollars - so medium sized startup. Coverage that is there mostly follows funding rounds and does not reach SIGCOV. There might be 2 independent in-depth pieces out there - maybe (deeming independence of coverage following funding rounds is not straightforward - often VC/company driven) - but the overall coverage here is not sufficient.Icewhiz (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep. Significant and relevant independent coverage available online. Satisfies WP:GNG. Promotional context can be dealt with by editing, not deletion.~~ Keyboard Therapy (talk) 1:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate iVote struck; already voted on 20 June. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2018 (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.

[1] ttps://arabic.cnn.com/tech/video/2017/01/31/v12294-ss-310117-paytabs

[1]