 | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2015 April 23. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Pinging editors who have already had an interest in deleting an article is not cool and taints the discussion so that no consensus can be formed. I have seen it a couple of times recently - it needs to stop. Now. Spartaz Humbug! 21:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Allied Wallet
- Allied Wallet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non
notable. Another
advert for Allied Wallet, this one from a
single purpose account with a clear
conflict of interest. There's a lack of coverage about the company in independent reliable sources. Existing coverage is not good enough. Primary, listings and press releases. A search found nothing better.
What new from Last time. They got a few "awards". None are major and none got any significant coverage from independent sources.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 11:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging Mrschimpf, The Banner, FunnyPika, 296.x who have all looked at its notability before. Boleyn ( talk) 12:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strong delete again a fluffy advertisement. Strange enough is the massive criticism nowhere to be found. Article should be deleted and salted. The Banner talk 13:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No improvement from the last time; didn't use the paid infomercial from the last version of the article, but again, stretching of the article by mentioning any payment method/company with a magnetic stripe/smartchip in the Western world, a bunch of awards, and everything else an average merchant service provider does. Not the puff piece from last time, but no substantial improvement either. Nate • ( chatter) 18:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete-surprise it wasn't put up when it first came up-was already afd before and looking at the page creators name it is a advertisement. Wgolf ( talk) 18:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Request to userify/draft - as the !votes above note, the article is non-neutral by, for example, leaving our RS criticism. However, the fact that such (negative) coverage exists suggests notability. As such, I am requesting the article be move to my userspace or draft space so that I can rewrite it in a neutral fashion. Unlike previous editors, I don't have a conflict of interest. :) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 14:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
| This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2015 April 23. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Pinging editors who have already had an interest in deleting an article is not cool and taints the discussion so that no consensus can be formed. I have seen it a couple of times recently - it needs to stop. Now. Spartaz Humbug! 21:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Allied Wallet
- Allied Wallet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non
notable. Another
advert for Allied Wallet, this one from a
single purpose account with a clear
conflict of interest. There's a lack of coverage about the company in independent reliable sources. Existing coverage is not good enough. Primary, listings and press releases. A search found nothing better.
What new from Last time. They got a few "awards". None are major and none got any significant coverage from independent sources.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 11:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Pinging Mrschimpf, The Banner, FunnyPika, 296.x who have all looked at its notability before. Boleyn ( talk) 12:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Strong delete again a fluffy advertisement. Strange enough is the massive criticism nowhere to be found. Article should be deleted and salted. The Banner talk 13:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No improvement from the last time; didn't use the paid infomercial from the last version of the article, but again, stretching of the article by mentioning any payment method/company with a magnetic stripe/smartchip in the Western world, a bunch of awards, and everything else an average merchant service provider does. Not the puff piece from last time, but no substantial improvement either. Nate • ( chatter) 18:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete-surprise it wasn't put up when it first came up-was already afd before and looking at the page creators name it is a advertisement. Wgolf ( talk) 18:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Request to userify/draft - as the !votes above note, the article is non-neutral by, for example, leaving our RS criticism. However, the fact that such (negative) coverage exists suggests notability. As such, I am requesting the article be move to my userspace or draft space so that I can rewrite it in a neutral fashion. Unlike previous editors, I don't have a conflict of interest. :) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 14:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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.