Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tagcash

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. A bit confusing but this looks like a consensus to delete. One editor started out as Keep and two sentences later was a Delete with no stricken !vote. I am going with the last indicated preference. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagcash[edit]

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

Little independent evidence of notability. The references are press releases. Article is essentially a promotional piece. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is indeed purely promotional; it's one external link is a dead one, too. Scriblerian1 (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references were not press releases, the Forbes Asia article and Deal Street Asia specifically talked to the company to get facts and information to write about. I am the founder of the company and I have tried to be as impartial as I can, as per Wikipedia rules (neutral point of view (NPOV). I have followed as much as possible similar pages created for companies similar to ours. The page is purely factual and useful to users wanting to research information.. Mark Vernon (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just FYI. The criteria for establishing facts is different than the criteria for establishing notability. The references you've provided fail the criteria to establish notability because they fail WP:ORGIND in that all of the "facts" are essentially quotes from the company or their officers. This is not considered "independent" and hence fails. Please produce sources that are not "advertorials" and don't quote the company or any of the officers and we can take another look. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timeline was written like an advertisement, but it's (seemed to be) backed by multiple independent sources, it just needs to be fully rewritten. However, since Markvtc claimed that they're the founder of the company, I'm concerned that their COI will affect this article's neutrality, so Delete. @Markvtc: If you're founder of this company, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayman30 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hayman30 please clarify your !vote. It starts as one thing (bolded) and then states another (also bolded). It's not 100% clear. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Hayman30 (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Sorry, I misspelled the external link, and have since corrected it. If the information on the page is fine as it is, and is written as Neutral, who should be approached to write it. What would be acceptable. I think there are rules for paying others to write articles on Wikipedia, so I am not sure how best to approach this. Mark Vernon (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate !vote struck. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Markvtc: You don't have to vote twice. And yes, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Markvtc. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Markvtc|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Hayman30 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayman30: Perhaps I misunderstand, but are you accusing me of voting twice? And of being paid to make edits? Can you explain, please?Scriblerian1 (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayman30: I apologize, I did indeed misunderstand, I see you were talking to Mark Vernon. Sorry for my confusion, I am new to this. Scriblerian1 (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah..OK..I am still learning how the process works. I looked at featured articles, as well as an article that was close to home that has been up for a while, so I copied the format and neutrality of Satoshi Citadel Industries, a similar company to ours here in Philippines. [[1]]. I know that X does not justify Y, but I have to get a format from somewhere, so accepted articles on wikipedia was what i was looking for. I am not being compensated for writing an article, but I will add the COI information now I know how...aye, still learning.--Markvtc (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the page to make it more neutral and factual, upon advice from WIkipedia editors. I hope this helps.--Markvtc (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Markvtc writes that he is not being compensated for writing an article. Is he being compensated by the company? If so, a sensu lato interpretation of paid editing is that he is a paid editor; just because he is being paid salary rather than piecework is secondary. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- just a tech startup going about its business and trying to get noticed. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH while the article focuses on promoting company's products. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I also removed all puffery and unnecessary details. Wikipedia is not a marketing or advocacy platform. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 19 June 2017 (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.