Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TransferGo

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TransferGo[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)

Not notable start-up, no in-depth coverage to pass WP:NCORP. Proded twice, tagged for notability since 2014 Renata (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject of the article is notable with significant mentions in secondary sources. For instance, this [[1]] is an award won by the subject with significant mention in this very article. These [[2]][3]] are some other sources cited in the article with significant mentions of the subject. The language or the tone of the articles appear neutral with no noticeable slant to show that they are press releases. Jokolis (talk) 7:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- The award is not notable, and the article about it does not cover TransferGo in depth. Startups.co.uk is essentially a press release. Techcrunch is so far the only quality source for WP:NCORP, but multiple such sources are needed. Renata (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sock. MER-C 08:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:ORG as no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources can be observed. @Renata3, I wouldn’t worry too much about arguing policy with the Nigerian editor above as edit history & pattern show they are a sock/returning blocked editor. Celestina007 (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One actual independent, RS amongst all the Refbombing doth not notability make. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 20 July 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.