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.
Non-notable company. The vast majority of sources provided are press-releases, advertorials or entries on list sites. The former lacks reliability, the latter merely confirms its existence. Google search did not result in required independent editorial coverage of the product to establish notability. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk06:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)reply
every company operating in the UK will be listed in companies house. Every payment processor in the UK will be listed on the BACS site, every regulated financial services company in the UK will have an FCA entry. This is business as usual and insufficient for notability. As for the rest, most are PR which lacks independence or are about routine company business. Please provide examples of independent editorial coverage that satisfies
WP:ORG. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk06:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)reply
@
AntiNom: thanks for this. I cannot access the Dnevnik article as it is behind a paywall. As for the others, they are hardly suitable. Capital: broad overview of the POS market, with a passing mention of the subject; IBT: topic is Amazon Go, where the subject is again mentioned in passing only; El Economista: definitely a press-release; Pymnts: advertorial - an "interview" with a senior figure of the company about how they can "help" the taxi industry. Hardly independent. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk12:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet
WP:GNG or
WP:CORP, especially with respect to
WP:CORPDEPTH. There are only sources provided in the article that aren't sponsored content or lack significant coverage are
churnalism written by the likes of "Retail Insight Network", "Pymnts", and "Digital Energy Solutions", none of which appear to have an editorial team. — Newslingertalk00:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I have added so many Independent Reliable Resources. I think these resources are enough to justify the subject notability. I request to all editors please check the all citations before delete this article. I just added few independent reliable resources such as Talking Retail, quotidianpost.it,
IB Times, pctechmag, Total Croatia News,
Gondola (magazine) and
Business.com.
AntiNom (
talk)
09:54, 8 August 2018 (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.
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.
Non-notable company. The vast majority of sources provided are press-releases, advertorials or entries on list sites. The former lacks reliability, the latter merely confirms its existence. Google search did not result in required independent editorial coverage of the product to establish notability. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk06:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)reply
every company operating in the UK will be listed in companies house. Every payment processor in the UK will be listed on the BACS site, every regulated financial services company in the UK will have an FCA entry. This is business as usual and insufficient for notability. As for the rest, most are PR which lacks independence or are about routine company business. Please provide examples of independent editorial coverage that satisfies
WP:ORG. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk06:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)reply
@
AntiNom: thanks for this. I cannot access the Dnevnik article as it is behind a paywall. As for the others, they are hardly suitable. Capital: broad overview of the POS market, with a passing mention of the subject; IBT: topic is Amazon Go, where the subject is again mentioned in passing only; El Economista: definitely a press-release; Pymnts: advertorial - an "interview" with a senior figure of the company about how they can "help" the taxi industry. Hardly independent. pseudonymJake Brockmantalk12:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet
WP:GNG or
WP:CORP, especially with respect to
WP:CORPDEPTH. There are only sources provided in the article that aren't sponsored content or lack significant coverage are
churnalism written by the likes of "Retail Insight Network", "Pymnts", and "Digital Energy Solutions", none of which appear to have an editorial team. — Newslingertalk00:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I have added so many Independent Reliable Resources. I think these resources are enough to justify the subject notability. I request to all editors please check the all citations before delete this article. I just added few independent reliable resources such as Talking Retail, quotidianpost.it,
IB Times, pctechmag, Total Croatia News,
Gondola (magazine) and
Business.com.
AntiNom (
talk)
09:54, 8 August 2018 (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.