Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapyd (company)

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. With a sockpuppet's !vote being struck, and no rebuttal to Highking's !vote despite a further 7 days of relisting, I find that their contribution is the most instructive here and am closing as consensus existing to delete. Daniel (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rapyd (company)

[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)

Nothing much has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapyd. Almost same sources and they're press releases about acquisitions and fundraises. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Reading Beans (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rapyd's actually a pretty major player in Finance and Technology in Israel. They're Israels most valuable private company as of last year and they have been mentioned in multiple articles in publications like the Economist due to their role in expanding business relations across the Middle East. They were one of the first Israeli companies to open an office in Dubai after the Abraham Accords and play a significant role in that region in terms of building business and cultural relationships. Their Wikipedia page needs some improvements for sure. I'll take a crack at it. I was actually thinking about writing a page for them and never got around to it, so I see what I can do. Word-Oh (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the coverage out there meets NCORP. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone else already made some improvements. I am planning on going in later this week and adding more content that is verifiable from third party sources and cleaning it up a bit as well. I will reply here once I do that. Word-Oh (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here at AfD, we don't care about "coverage" that only relies on content provided by the company and their execs. None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria - see below. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with @MaxnaCarta the Forbes, Insider, TechCrunch and CNBC meets WP:NCORP. Article could be improved though of course

~~Infomemoh (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)~~sockpuppet[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. Analysis below:

Reuters Press Release - fails WP:ORGIND
CBInsights have simply regurgitated the topic company's information, no real analysis available as of yet.
Times of Israel article is a regurgitation of this press release and contains no "Independent Content" as required by WP:ORGIND
Forbes contributor article - see WP:FORBESCON, deemed an unreliable source.
TechCrunch1 and TechCrunch 2 - see WP:TECHCRUNCH, not a reliable source for determining notability. Same author for both. Also, a lot of the article content was sourced from the company, unable to distinguish the amount of "Independent Content" and in-depth independent content, IMHO fails NCORP
Economic Times Based entirely on interview and company information, fails ORGIND
CNBC based entirely on interview and company information, no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
[1] article based entirely on this Press Release, fails ORGIND

None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. None contain the in-depth independent content required for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Currently Highking's comment is the most persuasive, relisting to see if it is either supported by others or alternatively rebutted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2023 (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.