Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payhawk

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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Payhawk[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced to funding coverage and press release reprints. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Bulgaria. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A412. I'd like the Payhawk article to remain as it's noteworthy to share Bulagaria's first unicorn and people may look for this info. If I remove some of the sources outside of Forbes and HBR for example, will that make it more acceptable? Thanks 62.49.116.79 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd like the Payhawk article to remain as it's noteworthy to share Bulagaria's first unicorn and people may look for this info. If I remove some of the sources outside of Forbes and HBR for example, will that make it more acceptable? Thanks 62.49.116.79 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. I suspect this article was created for promotional purposes. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 16:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A412. I'd like the Payhawk article to remain as it's noteworthy to share Bulagaria's first unicorn and people may look for this info. If I remove some of the sources outside of Forbes and HBR for example, will that make it more acceptable? Thanks 62.49.116.79 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of sources referenced, so per WP:THREE, it would be helpful if you could identify here the three best sources from the references, to help us evaluate. Please pay attention to WP:ORGTRIV and WP:ORGIND, in particular: these sources should not be announcements of Payhawk raising money, press release reprints ("Today, Payhawk announced...") that do not contain additional analysis, or articles that primarily consist of interview quotes from people associated with Payhawk. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Apart from the significant coverage in a large array of routine coverage, here is WP:THREE that I could find quickly.

Forbes article about how the company is the first unicorn in Bulgaria. Business Insider article about how it raised $100M. Capital (Bulgarian newspaper) about its billion-dollar valuation (again). It's impressive as Bulgaria's first unicorn. Meets WP:GNG in my books! TLA (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that this would meet WP:GNG, but the relevant SNG is WP:NCORP, which is stricter, and specifically excludes coverage "of a capital transaction, such as raised capital". RS don't actually say anything about Payhawk other than that it's been really good at raising money. As an aside, the term unicorn doesn't actually independently mean anything outside of the startup's valuation when they raise money. It's just a number. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True. What about this? TLA (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The post clearly says "Sponsored by Payhawk" in the header. Fails WP:ORGIND. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sources in the article and the ones I can locate all rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 22 January 2024 (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.