Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebMoney

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 keep. Sam Walton (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WebMoney[edit]

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

User:Cirt requested AfD discussion, so here we are. I stand by my original prod 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 (companies) requirement." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, Piotrus, for bringing this to AfD. I did say it was worthy of discussion at AfD itself, but I'll defer to community consensus about whether or not it should exist as an article here on Wikipedia. Good luck to all in the discussion, — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:RS. The only reference that would even possibly count is the QHA one, which is a tiny news brief mentioning the subject tangentially. If this is the best that can be found, then the subject is not sufficiently notable at this time. —Swpb^talk 15:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am rather surprised to see a nom like this coming from Piotrus. Yes, the article in its current state is horrible. Yes, the few references it has are mostly no good. But no, the subject is not non-notable. How can it be, with Webmoney being one of the widespread online payment systems used in Russia; one with millions of users; one with scandalous history; one with coverage in multiple sources? Indeed, one quick glance at the sources used in the Russian wiki counterpart and at the results gbooks returns convinces me that the article is easily salvageable. The only thing lacking is volunteers to bring the article up to standards (and no, I am not volunteering).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 17, 2014; 17:27 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezhiki: Most of those book mentions are in passing. They are helpful, but can we show that the subject received any non-passing coverage? Perhaps it is in some of the Russian sources, which I have trouble reading? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many sources only mention Webmoney in passing, but there are still plenty that deal with it directly, and not just in Russian. Take this book, for example. It has a whole chapter about Webmoney Transfer, and that's only one book I was able to find in 30 seconds, using a random search, without looking at Russian sources, all before I had my morning coffee :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 18, 2014; 12:57 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 24 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 ⨹ 16:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, for yo? - have you seen the chapter, or did you (as I did) go to Amazon and look at the Table of Contents? Second, I've tried to investigate the publisher, which is pretty obscure, but cannot at this point tell if it's a "pay to publish" situation. The academic "pay to publish" is very close to being "self-publish" with perhaps a bit more oversight, but I must say that the books coming out from that publisher look an awful lot like desperate "publish or perish" stuff. Third, the only articles that I find in the US press about WebMoney Transfer are articles about illegal activities that run their money through online money schemes. And these are only mentions. I'd definitely lean toward "keep" if some better sources could be found. LaMona (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen this chapter—it was freely available in the google books preview at the link I provided above (and some parts of it still are). The publisher is a division of Macmillian Publishers—hardly obscure. I can't comment on the possibility that it's a "pay to publish" situation, because I don't know what signs to look for in this case, but the book covers a good variety of digital currency systems, not just Webmoney. Also, we shouldn't be looking only at the English-language sources. A quick search of Russian books shows several titles about Webmoney (although one, of course, would have to look at the actual text to determine whether those books satisfy our reliable sources criteria).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 8, 2014; 14:28 (UTC)

Macmillan is a well-known publisher, but like many "big business" publishers today they have a number of branches that began as separate publishing houses. I have found some discussions about the publisher's reputation: [1]"Things get iffy with Palgrave Macmillan" [2]. etc. At best it's a medium-reputation academic publisher, formed in 2000 from a minor US branch of St. Martin's Press (that probably wasn't doing well). I unfortunately couldn't see more than the ToC of the book. LaMona (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -At first I was not going to get into this AfD but then I started looking at it a bit more and I found it to be very interesting. I agree with Ezhiki that this article is in a deplorable state, however, I do believe it's content is far from being non-notable and I further feel that it meets the WP:GNG requirements. With some rewrite and proper sourcing I think this article could make a nice addition to wikipedia.Canyouhearmenow 14:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All this article needs is some improvements. The subject seems to meet WP:NOTABILITY and the article has grown to quite a size. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:42, 9 December 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.