Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notarize (company)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notarize (company)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Notarize (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NOT, WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14 and WP:NOTDIR scope_creepTalk 09:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this article. This is the first and largest company allowing electronic notarization. They are the company behind Adobe's Sign platform. The broad business coverage I identified including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Inc., Fortune, NPR and both Boston and Washington Business Journals demonstrate notability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think scope_creep's nomination would have been a lot more convincing if they had given more explanation on why they think it fails NCORP, and left out all of these other policies and guidelines which are, in my opinion, simply not applicable. I think the articles in WP, NYT, NPR and WSJ add up to significant coverage in multiple R,I,S sources. PJvanMill)talk( 22:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14 and WP:NOTDIR are as applicable as any deletion criteria, particularly this instance in NCORP. The article WP, NYT, NPR and WSJ are no more than reflections on announcement of funding, and they all fail NCORP in one way or another. scope_creepTalk 09:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - routine coverage based off press releases. Creator also reeks of a paid editor with no disclosure, looking at that account editor history.Jilljoejack (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Sock. scope_creepTalk 00:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inserted comment The above user has been blocked as a sock created to vote delete in AfD discussions on articles I created. Can I strike the comment so it's clear to the closer? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely to strike through them if they are socks or spa's. scope_creepTalk 00:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brand new editor jumps into deletion discussion with more than a passing knowledge of notability and disclosure guidelines. Likely a sock. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll go through a review of the references tomorrow. They are very poor. scope_creepTalk 18:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A review of the references:
* Mortgage Closings Just Took a Big Step Into the Digital Age
* This N.Va. start-up wants bring public notaries into the mobile economy “We’ve got profitable economics from day one,” Kinsel said in an interview. A description of its operation. Fails WP:ORGIND Interview style article. Fails WP:SIRS Reliable but not in-depth.
* [1] Not specific to the proving notability.
* Notarize Wants To Turn Your iPhone Into A Notary “If the notarization had been digital, there wouldn’t have been the issue, Kinsel said. Looks like a fail on WP:ORGIND as another interview for article. Reliable but dependent source.
* Need something notarized? Virginia startup says its new app will help customers avoid the hassle "This can be a real pain point for people," Chief Operating Officer Adam Pase said of the process of finding a notary. Description of the company, description of its operation, when it started. Looks as though it is from a press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS. Reliable but not in-depth. It is a blog.
* Notaries Are Starting To Put Down The Stamp And Pick Up A Webcam "I don't think people realize how important of a part of the economy notarization is," says Adam Pase, co-founder of Notarize, one of the companies that remotely connects signers and notaries. "Despite the fact that there are so many [notarizations], the industry really hasn't changed much in literally centuries. It certainly hasn't kept up with the digital economy." Another interview style ref. Fails WP:ORGIND. Fails WP:SIRS. Dependent source.
* Notary startup winds down Arlington hub amid restructuring CEO Pat Kinsel said in an email to the Washington Business Journal last week that Notarize established a presence here three years ago, explaining Virginia was crucial to the company because it was the only state that allowed remote notarizations. Fails WP:SIRS. WP:ORGIND. Reliable but dependent and not-indepth. A press-release.
* E-doc Verifier Notarize Launches Competitor to DocuSign Classed as dependent coverage by WP:NCORP. Effectively Non-RS.
* A Will Without Ink and Paper Detailed and in-depth analysis of many different types services similar to Notarize. However only a small paragraph is denoted to Notarize. “I think of the Sumner Redstone story,” Mr. Kinsel said, referring to the 96-year-old media mogul who has been at the center of a battle for control of his personal fortune and stake in Viacom. “You look at his signatures. They’ve gone from this beautiful hand-scrawled signature to basically this line.” Such a deterioration of a signature is often an indiction of diminished capacity. Only tangentially specific to proving notability. Two small paragraphs, in an interview style setting.
* [2] Pat Kinsel, founder and CEO of Notarize, tells TechCrunch that 90% of people start searching for homes online and 60% apply for mortgages online, Junk ref. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS.
* Boston-based startup signs ‘game-changer’ partnership with Dropbox Essentially an announcement of partnership. In an interview, CEO Pat Kinsel called the deal a “game changer” for Notarize and valued the partnership at “several million dollars.” Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:ORGIND. Dependent Source.
* Redfin and Notarize Team for Online Homebuying Pat Kinsel, Founder and CEO of Notarize, said, "Our closing solution is a natural fit for Redfin because their customers are accustomed to a digital, mobile product Announcement of partnership. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Dependent Source.
* [3] An announcement. Fails WP:NCORP Another Techcrunch ref. Non-RS.
* Coronavirus Forcing Home Buyers to Scramble to Close Deals

There is coverage here, no doubt about it. But a lot of it either junk like Techcrunch, routine announcements e.g. partnerships, interview style articles that fail ORGIND or SIRS or stuff that looks like it came from press-release, or is some other dependent source. I can't read the WSJ's articles but wouldn't be surprised if they were as similar quality consisting of routine WP:MILL information. At the end of the day it is a small private company that has no need to be on Wikipedia. It is entirely non-notable and the only reason that it is getting any notice is that it is updating old processes from an old industry, like lots of other companies do that don't have articles. The whole article reads like a description of its lifetime operations. It is entirely non-notable scope_creepTalk 09:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of reliable sources to shoot down, including the Washington Post, NPR and the WSJ. The first WSJ article is about how revolutionary the company is and discusses a refi using their product. The second discusses how they are going to process $100 billion in transactions this year. Not a small company IMHO. I'll be happy to send the articles to you if you can't read them, but hopefully you won't vote on what you can't see. I also hope you're not suggesting any company that disrupts an industry shouldn't have an article, just because there's a lot of disruption going on? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article contains many sources proving the company exists but nothing about the importance or notability of that company. It's very promotional, primary-source, and press-release. Using Wikipedia as a fleshed-out LinkedIn is not the one. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are primary sources:
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Non specific to this proving notability.
Most of this information has been lifted verbatim from the companies blog or from press-releases. The idea that they don't have a large PR budget and don't issue press-releases like every other startup in existence, which is usually a condition of the funding, would be disingenuous. It not genuine coverage you would get with an old fashioned journalist. Its mostly just collected from the web, from blogs, from interviews, Snapchat/WhatsApp/email sessions and what the company formerly puts out as press releases. Almost the exact the same information we would collect. scope_creepTalk 22:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the above that have WP:ORGIND next to them are primary + Techcrunch entry which is low-quality muck. scope_creepTalk 22:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick review of these four allegedly primary sources shows the following independent journalists behind them:
[8] By Tina Reed – Staff Reporter, Washington Business Journal
[9] By Catherine Shu - Writer - Catherine Shu has covered startups in Asia and breaking news for TechCrunch since 2012. Her reporting has also appeared in the New York Times, the Taipei Times, Barron’s, the Wall Street Journal and the Village Voice.
[10] By Natasha Mascarenhas - a venture capital and tech reporter at Crunchbase News.
[11] Leena Rao - a journalist who has written over 750 articles for Fortune [[12]]
Clearly these are all independent, third party sources, contrary to the allegations of poor sourcing made in an attempt to delete this article. The article easily passes WP:GNG with multiple reliable sources. I'll look for some more info to add now. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly @Timtempleton: they are established sources or names, but what are they actually publishing? If they are puff-pieces, promotional, rehashed press releases, or otherwise related, then they are not independent. You could have 100 sources but if they're all rehashed or reheated promotional stuff, or passing mentions within longer pieces, then that won't cut the mustard. It doesn't matter if the company is a mega-billion dollar enterprise if the references ain't up to snuff. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doktorbuk: A careful reading of the coverage and an understanding of the media enterprises behind them shows that they are not promotional. I've done many articles over ten years, and have been able to suss out pretty quickly what sourcing is promotional cut and paste fluff filler, and what isn't. None of the sources I used for this article are anything but original journalism. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nine of that first block above are dependent sources and fail WP:SIRS. If that is the case, why are you still posting Crunchbase references, which are showing up deep red by the script as being particularly poor sourcing, specifically deigned by RS and by NCORP as ultra low quality and and an unreliable source. Yet you keep adding them. Techcrunch is just as bad. I don't think you know what a good source is. Looking at the Fortune reference. That is an interview style article that absolutely fails WP:ORGIND and is primary, because she is talking to them directly. They're classic Churnalism, by the very definition of it. scope_creepTalk 11:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can try to gaslight by repeatedly attacking reliable sources that are used in thousands of articles, but if you’re so sure the sources are unreliable, why don’t you go to the reliable sources noticeboard and see if you can convince other expert editors? It’s because they’re not unreliable, and any unconnected editor who reads the coverage will see there’s nothing promotional about it. It simply describes the business for interested readers, neutrally and without fluff. You are clearly a committed deletionist, and while I may look like an inclusionist, would it surprise you that I have a higher success rate with my delete votes than you do? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist and perhaps you are missing the point. When I see an article is rank, I will try and delete it. If I don't think there is any chance of it being deleted, I won't even nominate it and they're is plenty rank articles out there, that aren't notable and I will never be able to delete them. It is the nature of the system. And success rate is nothing to do with it either. It is what is right and proper. I interpret the guidelines like everybody else. I don't think it is a good thing to add these types of article into Wikipedia mainly because they have number of problems. They are hard to maintain, are better created somewhere else on the web like Bloomberg, that are paid to maintain the information and at the end of the day, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be directory. scope_creepTalk 19:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly passes WP:GNG. As a policy based argument goes, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The entire article is sourced with independent reliable sources. No primary sources or press releases were needed to provide information about this notable company. Having good articles about notable companies does not make Wikipedia a directory - rather, that's one of the purposes of Wikipedia. Sourcing and policy aside, it's just common sense. It's the first online notarization company, which would be significant even if we weren't in a pandemic. The notarization business is quite large, and will indeed be disrupted, for the better. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article creator Timtempleton is relying on WP:GNG to prove the article sources are reliable and independent. However the analysis above based on the newer standard WP:NCORP, which the editor seems inclined not to use, shows that most of the sources are of the very low-quality churnalism type, or are dependent interview types, completely breaking NCORP. The first task of any article is to enable validation per WP:V. There is no indication in the sources or the text that this company is notable, it is merely a list of operations for a new private startup. scope_creepTalk 08:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's currently a discussion ongoing on the WP:N Talk page where the clear consensus is that the NCORP/NORG SNG is the guideline to follow and that this guideline adopts a stricter interpretation on sources that establish notability for companies/organizations. With that in mind, much of Timtempleton's arguments fall away. For example, Timtempleton lists four references above which are claimed to meet the criteria for notability for the reasons that they are independent, third party sources. This reference from BizJournals opens with An Arlington tech startup says and relies entirely on an interview/quotation with the CEO. Even by GNG standards, this in not "independent" and experienced editors who spend time at AfD are expected to know that an "independent source" doesn't just mean that the publisher is functionally and corporately separate from the topic company, but that the content is also Independent. WP:ORGIND within WP:NCORP provides clarity on "Independent Content" to mean original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This reference therefore fails ORGIND and GNG. The TechCrunch reference suffers the same faults, the article starts with Notarize, the platform that enables digital notarizations, announced and the reference is clearly based on a company announcement and interview/quotations attributed to the CEO. This reference fails for the same reasons as the previous. This Crunchbase reference is off the back of this announcement and fails for the exact same reasons as the previous two references. It contains no Independent Content. Finally, this Fortune article is a classic churnalism profile piece, based on an interview with the CEO and also contain absolutely zero Independent Content. All four reference fail GNG (an "independent" reference doesn't just refer to no corporate links between the publisher and the topic company) and WP:ORGIND. I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. (adding my sig late) HighKing++ 21:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per Nom: I read articles listed at AFD first. The 3rd paragraph of the "History" section states "By June 2017, the company had reportedly done 10,000 notarizations worldwide." and uses an NPR inline citation. As I clicked on the link I was thinking that this shows some international recognition. The source states "Pase estimates that Notarize has facilitated some 10,000 notarizations for people on every continent except Antarctica." Two paragraphs above this is the estimators identification: "Pase, with the company Notarize...". This is certainly primary statements that are not independent of the subject. -(see added comments below) - Otr500 (talk)

Comments[edit]

The lead is sourced by the Washington Post but the content of that source states "Because it’s just now publicly launching its product, the company has no customers yet and hence no revenue. But there are 24 notaries already signed up to work as independent contractors.". This does not support notability.
When there are crappy sources like Crunchbase and Techcrunch I have to look at those usually considered more reliable and independent and this apparently only backs up the startup year. The source dated February 4, 2016, does not actually give a 2015 founding. The source also states that "Right now the platform only works on iPhone and specifically targets individual consumers." which is not covered in the article that simply advertises an "online service".
The article states, "Notarize's online notary video service was used by Pennsylvania postal worker Richard Hopkins for a sworn affidavit alleging voter fraud, a claim that was later recanted." The inline "Business Insider" source states "obtained through an online notary service" with a link to the notarize.com home page. If not advertising the company through the link I would question why the name was simply not just provided. The second paragraph of "Challenge" states "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.". There is a constant problem in this regard.
As Wikipedia becomes more reliable the old "there are plenty of sources" became outdated. Editors actually look at the sources to determine if they are not only reliable but directly support material in an article and many of the sources I have checked fail in this regard. Otr500 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks everyone for the comments. After ten years and almost 100 articles, it shows that I still have something to learn about sourcing. I removed the offending ones and request a relist of this discussion so the revision can be reviewed. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Hi Tim, the answer isn't about removing the "offending" references as this won't make good references that establish notability appear. Also, there are two types of reference - those that support facts/descriptions/etc within the article and those that establish notability - the former are a much lower standard than the latter. If you believe there are references that meet the higher NCORP standard, just post the links here and you will get fast feedback. HighKing++ 12:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Here are some of the best sources that make up the article.
      • [1]
      • [2]
      • [3]
      • [4]
      • [5]
      • [6]

References

  1. ^ "Mortgage Closings Just Took a Big Step Into the Digital Age". The Wall Street Journal. 2017-08-09. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
  2. ^ "Coronavirus Forcing Home Buyers to Scramble to Close Deals". Wall Street Journal. 2020-03-21. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
  3. ^ "Notarize Wants To Turn Your iPhone Into A Notary". Fortune. 2016-06-13. Retrieved 2020-10-02.(subscription required)
  4. ^ "Need a Document Notarized? There's an App for That". Entrepreneur. 2016-02-04. Retrieved 2020-11-23.
  5. ^ "A Will Without Ink and Paper". NY Times. 2018-10-19. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
  6. ^ "The Startup That Could Save You From One Very Boring and Time-Consuming Task". Inc. 2016-02-04. Retrieved 2020-10-07.
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Halon, Eytan (2019-01-16). "Start-up offers online notarization service for U.S. citizens worldwide: Boston-based start-up Notarize aims to make such bureaucracy a thing of the past". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.

      The article notes:

      Boston-based start-up Notarize aims to make such bureaucracy a thing of the past, enabling US citizens at home and abroad, including in Israel, to legally notarize documents online, day or night, in a matter of minutes. ... Founded in 2015, Notarize has already assisted tens of thousands of individuals and businesses on every continent, excluding Antarctica, to have documents digitally notarized. The company has even executed over 1,000 online mortgage transactions in the last 18 months, reducing average deal closure time from 52 days to under a week.

    2. Rao, Leena (2016-06-13). "Notarize Wants To Turn Your iPhone Into A Notary". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-11-28. Retrieved 2020-11-28.

      The article notes:

      With Notarize, anyone can upload a document to their mobile phone or Notarize’s website and connect with a notary online in less than three minutes. Users will also be asked to take a picture and upload their state ID, and Notarize will validate your identity. Notarize then coordinates a video call with a licensed Notary, where the official will validate your identity and witness your signature of a documents. Notarize’s notary will apply an digital notarization seal, and sign and validate the document. Notarize charges users $25 per notarization.

    3. Sawyers, Paul (2020-07-08). "Form D Friday: Online notary startup leads local businesses raising $77M+". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2020-11-04. Retrieved 2020-11-28.

      The article notes:

      Founded in 2015, Notarize provides the platform for signing documents, along with a notary who can verify the participants in a transaction. Working across PCs, tablets, and smartphones, Notarize enables users to upload a PDF or snap a photo of a paper document, verify their identity, and connect with a notary across a two-way video stream. The notary completes the final verification and adds their own signature and “seal” digitally, and the user can download the fully notarized document. The platform also supports multiple participants when additional witnesses are required by law.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Notarize to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At least you've acknowledged that the sources "contain quotes from people affiliated with the company" but you appear to be saying that the extracts you've posted are "independent reporting". ORGIND states references must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject for the purposes of establishing notability. Taking a deeper look at your references:
  • The Jerusalem Post reference is 100% entirely based on an interview with the founder/CEO. It starts with a photo of staff outside their office in Boston. The format of the article is promotional and follows the same tired format. 1) Define the problem. 2) The Founder's "aha!" moment. 3) Company beginnings 4) Description of produce/service 5) Future-looking comments and funding. Everything except 5) is in this article. The first part of the extract you've quoted above is also not "Independent Content" as the author clearly attributes the company aspirations to the company itself. The second part of the extract is sandwiched between quotations from the CEO/Founder and it is clearly information that was provided by the company. We don't simply look at an article and extract sentences that are not quotations and say "Look, this journalist is providing their own opinion or analysis or investigation" when clearly they're simply regurgitating information that they were provided by the company. This article fails WP:ORGIND.
  • The Fortune article is also promotional. Just like the previous article, the article is entirely based on an interview with the founder. Nothing in the article suggest that the author tried out the service themselves and the extract you've provided regurgitates information from the Notarize website. This reference also fails WP:ORGIND.
  • The VentureBeat article is 100% based on this company announcement. Also fails WP:ORGIND.
None of those references meet the criteria set out in WP:NCORP for companies/organizations. HighKing++ 16:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm surprised this is still but I see the same poor references still being posted that assert, for the most part WP:NCORP. Looking at the first ref of Cunards above. The first fails WP:ORGIND, another dependent source, interview style. Notarize director of marketing Ryan MacInnis told The Jerusalem Post
The second one: Fails WP:ORGIND. Another dependent source, and interview style. The third one is an annoucement of funding, that fail WP:CORPDEPTH. These has been no real references been presented. They are all primary interview. No secondary sources. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14. scope_creepTalk 00:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds that it plainly fails WP:NCORP. Blacklisteffort (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Sock. scope_creepTalk 00:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Inserted comment The above user has been blocked as a sock created to vote delete in AfD discussions on articles I created. Can I strike the comment so it's clear to the closer? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Blacklisteffort is a brand new account created to participate in these deletion discussions for two articles I wrote. Discussion is ongoing at SPI. Also, simply saying a source is unreliable to further one’s deletion vote doesn’t hold as much weight versus actually getting the reliable sources noticeboard to agree. All the sources used here are reliable and independent. Passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP which is applicable per consensus at WP:N is for these types of articles. It gives ample instruction within the article in how to apply it. Perhaps you should read it. scope_creepTalk 23:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From a direct quote from WP:NCORP, "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." All the sources in the article are reliable and unrelated to the organization, so according to the policy you cite, this meets the strict guidelines for notability. That being settled, do you find it odd that these brand new accounts are following you around voting to delete in support of your nominations of articles I've written? Do you know who is doing this, or is it just a strange coincidence? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue who is doing it or why. Spa accounts have been a feature of Afd since the beginning and they're input is perfectly valid as I've found out to my chagrin many times in the past. It is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Regarding the sources, only you, Tim are saying are saying the sources are reliable. Nobody else is. scope_creepTalk 08:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources noticeboard is a better use of your time, and I hope you will be more curious about obvious socks that pop up, because they won’t always mirror your delete votes. I also hope this continues to be a positive experience for both of us. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:18, 1 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Notarize_(company)&oldid=1171898683"