- 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. No consensus for a specific outcome has transpired herein. North America 1000 02:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Curve (payment card)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Curve (payment card) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep this article: It should be not be deleted as with 300,000 customers, Curve is a WP:NORG
- I have addressed the concern raised that "significant Reliable Sources coverage not found." I have gone through and checked every sentence is attributed to a reliable source, adding in citations as required.
- I have addressed the concern "What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP ." All sentences in this article have accurate citations from reliable sources.
Andydangerfield ( talk) 20:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Your second point doesn't address the concern. Please see WP:ORGIND. Nobody is saying the sources aren't reliable or that the extracts aren't accurate. What is being said is that there is no significant (more than a passing mention) intellectually independent (not relying on announcements/quotations/company-produced info) content in the references. HighKing ++ 13:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, per the sources establishing notability that Andydangerfield has provided. However, the fact that it has 300,000 customers is irrelevant; it could have ten million customers and still not be notable. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - passes WP:NORG. Also per sources added by Andydangerfield. Skirts89 ( talk) 21:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nom's comment: the content added by Andydangerfield amounts to WP:PROMO directory listing, i.e.
- "In July 2017, Curve rolled out a feature on the app allowing users to retroactively change their selected payment card for a transaction as old as 14 days.[13][14] After attracting a waiting list of 50,000 people, Curve fully launched to UK consumers in early 2018.[15] By the end of 2018, it had 300,000 customers across Europe.[16]"
- Having 300,000 customers is not an indicator of notability. Andydangerfield also failed to mention at this AfD that he's an employee at Curve. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment:I have removed paragraph of the number of current customers due to debate in this AfD discussion as to whether this is an indicator of notability. All other sentences cite notable sources.
- It says quite clearly in my bio that I am a content manager for Curve. I am happy mention that wherever else appropriate. I’m new to editing on Wikipedia so appreciate any guidance on this. My only aim is to ensure this article is a fair and accurate reflection of Curve and I am happy to amend anything deemed inappropriate in the article. Apologies, forgot to sign previous comment so re-added this comment as a signed comment. Thanks Andydangerfield ( talk) 09:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Andy; another user has removed your unsigned comment to ensure the thread remains easily readable - if you forget to sign in the future, you can always edit the comment to add it, you don't need to repeat the post. They have also removed your repeated vote for the same reason - in AfD's you should not vote more than once; should you have any more top level comments to add, you can head them with Comment - if you change your vote due to being swayed by new evidence or arguments you should strike out your previous vote with <s>Stricken text</s> before posting your new one. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Classic startup article that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. No real information outside the launch. References are a mix of reviews, funding news and business article churnalism. scope_creep Talk 15:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Not one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are all either based on company announcements or the content is not in-depth or significant. References fail WP:NCORP - specifically WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH - topic fails GNG. HighKing ++ 13:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep coverage in national newspapers,
MoneyWeek and
Which? is just enough for notability.
Peter James (
talk) 23:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, but coverage in national newpapers is not part of the criteria for establishing notability. It is about the type of coverage. The coverage in Moneyweek and Which is all based on the company announcement that launched the card. You will see a lot of "coverage" at the end of Jan and beginning of Feb 2018, all in "reliable sources", but failing
WP:ORGIND as it is also all based on the company announcement of the launch of the new app. For example,
the Irish Times,
TechCrunch,
Finextra,
nomadgate,
crowdfundinsider ... tons of coverage on the launch. Fails
WP:ORGIND.
HighKing
++ 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's a difference between a review and a press release. Obviously reviews are likely to be of new products or services, but coverage is selective: many products and services are not reviewed or written about in national newspapers and well known magazines read by many people. Although these is the most significant coverage, there is some from other reliiable sources before and after the launch.
Peter James (
talk) 20:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Classic fail of WP:ORGIND. It is generic news associated with a startup. scope_creep Talk 10:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- None of the references are "reviews" in the context of somebody getting and using the card and writing about their experiences. Instead, the references are regurgitating the information provided by the company in terms of (1) What it is (2) the benefits (3) the costs. This is classic churnalism and the WP:NCORP guidelines were explicitly tightened up last year to exclude these types of articles for the purposes of establishing notability. HighKing ++ 12:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's a difference between a review and a press release. Obviously reviews are likely to be of new products or services, but coverage is selective: many products and services are not reviewed or written about in national newspapers and well known magazines read by many people. Although these is the most significant coverage, there is some from other reliiable sources before and after the launch.
Peter James (
talk) 20:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, but coverage in national newpapers is not part of the criteria for establishing notability. It is about the type of coverage. The coverage in Moneyweek and Which is all based on the company announcement that launched the card. You will see a lot of "coverage" at the end of Jan and beginning of Feb 2018, all in "reliable sources", but failing
WP:ORGIND as it is also all based on the company announcement of the launch of the new app. For example,
the Irish Times,
TechCrunch,
Finextra,
nomadgate,
crowdfundinsider ... tons of coverage on the launch. Fails
WP:ORGIND.
HighKing
++ 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 16:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 16:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. I've removed a large portion of the sources on the page for being from tabloids or unreliable publications, but there are several good articles that focus on the company in depth, enough in my mind to clearly pass the harsh standards of WP:CORPDEPTH. I added some Financial Times coverage of a lawsuit, and articles such as this one in TechCrunch focus on the company at large, not just the launch itself. Also staff coverage in Forbes which isn't all positive. 66.198.222.67 ( talk) 17:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- https://techcrunch.com is too indiscriminate to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, while [www.forbes.com/sites www.forbes.com/sites] is a user-submitted area, not editorial content. FT is a passing mention. This is still a directory listing on a nn org that is trying to use Wikipedia to promote itself. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, to be clear, the Financial Times article is not "coverage of a lawsuit", but an article based on a blog post on Curve's website, various tweet from purported Curve users and a statement from American Express. There is no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and fails WP:ORGIND. I agree with the above on the TechCrunch article (based on the PR surrounding the launch of their app in the UK and also based on "a call with Curve founder and CEO"), meets the definition of chrunalism and therefore also fails ORGIND. I also agree with the above that the Forbes article is from their "sites" section which is explicitly excluded for the establishment of notability in WP:NCORP and is classified as "Dependent coverage". HighKing ++ 13:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree most of the articles count in part as churnalism (most business articles do), but scattered throughout the fully admissible TechCrunch and Forbes articles (corporate sellouts, yes, but still known for fact-checking and hardly as ridiculous as the Daily Mail or Enquirer), there is enough journalistic perspective to show the topic is notable. Concerning the advertising, the trivial or promotional details can be chopped out quickly by a discerning and neutral editor, and so no need to delete on those grounds alone. 66.198.222.67 ( talk) 19:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Some new sources for perusing. 66.198.222.67 ( talk) 20:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Kadhim Shubber, May 25, 2016 It’s no fun when Amex throws your startup a Curve ball, The Financial Times
- February 17, 2016 New Card Allows Users to Use Amex Anywhere - Without Paying Surcharge, The Daily Telegraph
- Steve O'Hear, January 2019 Amex blocks Curve as the fintech startup vows to fight 'anti-competetitive' decision, TechCrunch
- The first is generic, it is introducing the card to readers of the FT and introduces nothing that is not covered by other churnalism. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- The second one is exactly the same format, it describes the card, then the founders, then the funding. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- The third is real news, but it exactly the type of news that comes from a startup. Startup news is covered by WP:NCORP. That was part of the reason it was written. scope_creep Talk 10:22, 9 February 2019 (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.
- 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. No consensus for a specific outcome has transpired herein. North America 1000 02:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Curve (payment card)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Curve (payment card) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep this article: It should be not be deleted as with 300,000 customers, Curve is a WP:NORG
- I have addressed the concern raised that "significant Reliable Sources coverage not found." I have gone through and checked every sentence is attributed to a reliable source, adding in citations as required.
- I have addressed the concern "What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP ." All sentences in this article have accurate citations from reliable sources.
Andydangerfield ( talk) 20:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Your second point doesn't address the concern. Please see WP:ORGIND. Nobody is saying the sources aren't reliable or that the extracts aren't accurate. What is being said is that there is no significant (more than a passing mention) intellectually independent (not relying on announcements/quotations/company-produced info) content in the references. HighKing ++ 13:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, per the sources establishing notability that Andydangerfield has provided. However, the fact that it has 300,000 customers is irrelevant; it could have ten million customers and still not be notable. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - passes WP:NORG. Also per sources added by Andydangerfield. Skirts89 ( talk) 21:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nom's comment: the content added by Andydangerfield amounts to WP:PROMO directory listing, i.e.
- "In July 2017, Curve rolled out a feature on the app allowing users to retroactively change their selected payment card for a transaction as old as 14 days.[13][14] After attracting a waiting list of 50,000 people, Curve fully launched to UK consumers in early 2018.[15] By the end of 2018, it had 300,000 customers across Europe.[16]"
- Having 300,000 customers is not an indicator of notability. Andydangerfield also failed to mention at this AfD that he's an employee at Curve. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment:I have removed paragraph of the number of current customers due to debate in this AfD discussion as to whether this is an indicator of notability. All other sentences cite notable sources.
- It says quite clearly in my bio that I am a content manager for Curve. I am happy mention that wherever else appropriate. I’m new to editing on Wikipedia so appreciate any guidance on this. My only aim is to ensure this article is a fair and accurate reflection of Curve and I am happy to amend anything deemed inappropriate in the article. Apologies, forgot to sign previous comment so re-added this comment as a signed comment. Thanks Andydangerfield ( talk) 09:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Andy; another user has removed your unsigned comment to ensure the thread remains easily readable - if you forget to sign in the future, you can always edit the comment to add it, you don't need to repeat the post. They have also removed your repeated vote for the same reason - in AfD's you should not vote more than once; should you have any more top level comments to add, you can head them with Comment - if you change your vote due to being swayed by new evidence or arguments you should strike out your previous vote with <s>Stricken text</s> before posting your new one. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Classic startup article that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. No real information outside the launch. References are a mix of reviews, funding news and business article churnalism. scope_creep Talk 15:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Not one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are all either based on company announcements or the content is not in-depth or significant. References fail WP:NCORP - specifically WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH - topic fails GNG. HighKing ++ 13:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep coverage in national newspapers,
MoneyWeek and
Which? is just enough for notability.
Peter James (
talk) 23:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, but coverage in national newpapers is not part of the criteria for establishing notability. It is about the type of coverage. The coverage in Moneyweek and Which is all based on the company announcement that launched the card. You will see a lot of "coverage" at the end of Jan and beginning of Feb 2018, all in "reliable sources", but failing
WP:ORGIND as it is also all based on the company announcement of the launch of the new app. For example,
the Irish Times,
TechCrunch,
Finextra,
nomadgate,
crowdfundinsider ... tons of coverage on the launch. Fails
WP:ORGIND.
HighKing
++ 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's a difference between a review and a press release. Obviously reviews are likely to be of new products or services, but coverage is selective: many products and services are not reviewed or written about in national newspapers and well known magazines read by many people. Although these is the most significant coverage, there is some from other reliiable sources before and after the launch.
Peter James (
talk) 20:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Classic fail of WP:ORGIND. It is generic news associated with a startup. scope_creep Talk 10:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- None of the references are "reviews" in the context of somebody getting and using the card and writing about their experiences. Instead, the references are regurgitating the information provided by the company in terms of (1) What it is (2) the benefits (3) the costs. This is classic churnalism and the WP:NCORP guidelines were explicitly tightened up last year to exclude these types of articles for the purposes of establishing notability. HighKing ++ 12:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- There's a difference between a review and a press release. Obviously reviews are likely to be of new products or services, but coverage is selective: many products and services are not reviewed or written about in national newspapers and well known magazines read by many people. Although these is the most significant coverage, there is some from other reliiable sources before and after the launch.
Peter James (
talk) 20:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, but coverage in national newpapers is not part of the criteria for establishing notability. It is about the type of coverage. The coverage in Moneyweek and Which is all based on the company announcement that launched the card. You will see a lot of "coverage" at the end of Jan and beginning of Feb 2018, all in "reliable sources", but failing
WP:ORGIND as it is also all based on the company announcement of the launch of the new app. For example,
the Irish Times,
TechCrunch,
Finextra,
nomadgate,
crowdfundinsider ... tons of coverage on the launch. Fails
WP:ORGIND.
HighKing
++ 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 16:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 16:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. I've removed a large portion of the sources on the page for being from tabloids or unreliable publications, but there are several good articles that focus on the company in depth, enough in my mind to clearly pass the harsh standards of WP:CORPDEPTH. I added some Financial Times coverage of a lawsuit, and articles such as this one in TechCrunch focus on the company at large, not just the launch itself. Also staff coverage in Forbes which isn't all positive. 66.198.222.67 ( talk) 17:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- https://techcrunch.com is too indiscriminate to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, while [www.forbes.com/sites www.forbes.com/sites] is a user-submitted area, not editorial content. FT is a passing mention. This is still a directory listing on a nn org that is trying to use Wikipedia to promote itself. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, to be clear, the Financial Times article is not "coverage of a lawsuit", but an article based on a blog post on Curve's website, various tweet from purported Curve users and a statement from American Express. There is no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and fails WP:ORGIND. I agree with the above on the TechCrunch article (based on the PR surrounding the launch of their app in the UK and also based on "a call with Curve founder and CEO"), meets the definition of chrunalism and therefore also fails ORGIND. I also agree with the above that the Forbes article is from their "sites" section which is explicitly excluded for the establishment of notability in WP:NCORP and is classified as "Dependent coverage". HighKing ++ 13:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree most of the articles count in part as churnalism (most business articles do), but scattered throughout the fully admissible TechCrunch and Forbes articles (corporate sellouts, yes, but still known for fact-checking and hardly as ridiculous as the Daily Mail or Enquirer), there is enough journalistic perspective to show the topic is notable. Concerning the advertising, the trivial or promotional details can be chopped out quickly by a discerning and neutral editor, and so no need to delete on those grounds alone. 66.198.222.67 ( talk) 19:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Some new sources for perusing. 66.198.222.67 ( talk) 20:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Kadhim Shubber, May 25, 2016 It’s no fun when Amex throws your startup a Curve ball, The Financial Times
- February 17, 2016 New Card Allows Users to Use Amex Anywhere - Without Paying Surcharge, The Daily Telegraph
- Steve O'Hear, January 2019 Amex blocks Curve as the fintech startup vows to fight 'anti-competetitive' decision, TechCrunch
- The first is generic, it is introducing the card to readers of the FT and introduces nothing that is not covered by other churnalism. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- The second one is exactly the same format, it describes the card, then the founders, then the funding. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- The third is real news, but it exactly the type of news that comes from a startup. Startup news is covered by WP:NCORP. That was part of the reason it was written. scope_creep Talk 10:22, 9 February 2019 (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.