Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azimo

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 and redirect to ASIMO. Despite their large number, the sources don't establish notability. perhaps this will be different in the future, but there is no way of knowing that right now. Per the suggestion of Thryduulf, I am creating a redirect to the similar sounding (and therefore likely typo) ASIMO. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azimo[edit]

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

I originally prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement". It was deprodded by the creator, who added some new sources, but I am afraid they don't seem sufficient. New sources include a CNN video, were the company is briefly mentioned, but brief mentions on video, even by major networks, are rarely sufficient. A documentary, or at least a dedicated program, is what is usually needed here. The article shows few passing mentions by mainstream media, and several more detailed articles by less mainstream outlets such as TechCrunch. I don't think this is sufficient. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." A quick search reveals over 3,000 pieces of coverage in thirty languages across The Economist, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Bloomberg, BBC, Times, Guardian, El Pais, Le Monde. Link with Facebook trying to buy the business. There's no doubt this entry is valid. Thesocialpro (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is deleted, please consider replacing it with a redirect to ASIMO (which I've heard pronounced with a Z). Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment above. Thanks but two entirely different things ASIMO is a Japanese robot and Azimo is the worlds most complete online money transfer business. Thesocialpro (talk • contribs) 07:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, hence "if this is deleted". This is a plausible misspelling of the robot's name (that's how I ended up here), if there is an article here then the hatnote directs people who made the same mistake as me to what they are looking for. If this article is deleted, then it could become a {{R from misspelling}} redirect. If the article is not deleted my comment has no relevance. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure spam / advertising that was rejected multiple times at Articles for creation containing a train wreck of sources that either are general routine coverage [1], passing mentions [2] or not actually mentioning the company at all [3] - but ultimately it's a fairly standard company trying to puff up notability. The biggest claim of importance is the potential acquisition by Facebook, but the sources relating to that are generally unconcerned by this organisation. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Depending on how they are interpreted, it seems to meet all of the criteria in the Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the rather vague (for commercial organizations) guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). It's clearly not a local garage company. It is one of the companies that Reuters and other news services choose to write about when covering this new field. So people will see it in the news and want to know more about it. My concern is that some of the statements are not supported by the cites. For example, why is it the "most complete"? So I say keep it and tag it where needed with {{failed verification}}. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would go further and say the statements that make the largest claims to notability are the ones which fail verification, which means in my view that a neutral, well sourced article at this point is impossible to write. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article did give the impression that it was jumping through hoops to satisfy the AfC notability requirements. OK, it's only a couple of years old and has just received its Series A financing. Nobody knows if it will still be around in five years, or whether it will have acquired by a larger company. The notability would seem to me to rest on the awards it has received and the services themselves. I think there is material in the sources to describe why it was founded in the first place, namely as a way for migrant workers in Europe to send money to their families without being gouged by the banks. I tend to be sympathetic to that and think it's enough justification for an article. I moved material on the awards and financing to the end of the article. Information that you need to evaluate a startup, but users don't care. I also deleted the first claim about "world's most complete" because I couldn't find anything on the Net to support it. Everything else seems to be supported by the sources. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2014 (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.