Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quisk

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quisk[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Most notorious ways of making This Wikipedia Compromised on a highest scale of blatant promotions: Motivations are none other than Paid advertising. Such articles are violating every means possible by misusing GNC and References. Wikipedia is compromised. And can you even cite anything why on earth this article makes an Encyclopedia material. No one bother to know about this company. Not even their own industry I doubt. Only few media references are blatantly misused to create this High promotional material. Only interest is to build SEO, Online reputation and Luring customers or employee in the name of Wikipedia. As per wikipedia Such as this:

Light2021 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC) From company Promotional writing of an article to references used for press or news coverage. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. references are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. company only mention the Investment news where thousands of company gets seed, angel or any kind of funding on daily basis on each part of the world. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. It will be flooded with thousands of worldwide funding company daily. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I work for Quisk (and am biased) but agree that the previous entry, last updated in 2014, was extremely promotional, PR, and investing focused, as Light2021 points out. Where I disagree is notability: As this entry outlines, Quisk is a mobile-also, number and PIN electronic payment system rather than a device-only system like ApplePay. This makes it a unique and new type of payment platform, the only mobile-also payment system that we know of. It is not our intention to create a company directory or encyclopedia entry, but simply to factually inform others about a new payment type. --Mary Garfein, COO, Quisk — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGarfein (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate Attention: Auto signed name itself as North America¹⁰⁰⁰ . Is it him really? As an admin, I am doubtful, as it is being Relisted and other companies are made contributions for such. If it is true. It is a grave concern and case of COI not for this but also relative companies or even others. Light2021 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the previous erroneous signature above (diff) and added the unsigned template above. Perhaps it was some sort of copy/paste error by the user; it wasn't my post. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This Vote must be Deleted immediately. It is compromised on the ground of COI and Misuse of Possible creating false impressions and building false credibility in the admin name. I am still doubtful, it was an error. It seems intentional. As it was relisted by you earlier. this user seems new and in a hurry to Keep vote. no earlier contributions are made as per my understanding. Light2021 (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Total novice at this--I don't have a user name so copied the format of a previous entry and signed my post. Apologies for any mistake in formatting. --Mary Garfein, COO, Quisk — Preceding unsigned comment added by MGarfein (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 07:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; an unremarkable private tech company. WP:TOOSOON & WP:PROMO apply. Wikipedia is not a catalog for unremarkable minor companies. The copy includes:

In 2012 Steve Novak was appointed as CEO of Quisk.

This inticates to me that there's nothing better to write about than its non notable CEO. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and although I've been watching this since the start, I missed commenting before the relist, everything here is literally advertising and there's even as far as no actual significance, let alone something of substance. The history shows this also has only existed for advertising and therefore there's nothing to compromise with that. We can only save ourselves from such advertising, if we're firm and take care of it by deleting as quickly as possible, chances of notability or in the future, be damned. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SwisterTwister and K.e.coffman. Ceosad (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2016 (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.