Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SadaPay (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:51, 3 June 2024

SadaPay

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Every reference is PR and churnalism. Every reference is a PR announcement. Fails WP:NCORP and the key tenet of WP:V. This is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Pakistan, and Turkey. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: I've nominated for deletion the BLP of the founder of Sadapay, but I believe this article about the company should be kept. Considering the sign./in-depth press coverage the company has garnered - such as Pakistan Today, Pakistan Today, Bloomberg. Express Tribune - the company may meet WP:GNG. Fwiw, it is Pakistan's most-funded fintech. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single reference is regurgitated PR. With this referencing it fails. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, Well the coverage provided by Pakistan Today consists of investigative stories rather than press releases. And, Bloomberg typically doesn't cover Pakistani companies unless they are making some impacts. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first Pakistan Today ref is a lightly-rephrased press release. Compare this and this. The second, of course, is an entirely-routine funding announcement failing WP:ORGTRIV. —Cryptic 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic, Alright, you've sold me. Count me in! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib Did you mean only to strike your !vote and not enter a different opinion? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject meets the WP:ORGCRIT. Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mfarazbaig The references must show this. They do not. Your argument is WP:ILIKEIT which carries no weight in this discussion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago we deleted this because it was almost entirely unsourced and the only sources anybody could find were press releases and routine announcements. Now we have a new article with mostly those same sources in them - not even new marketing material and reports of funding, but the same ones that were available and rejected before. The few that postdate the deletion are no better: Ref 7 is an announcement of an acquisition consisting almost entirely of quotes with the remaining two sentences verbatim from a press release; ref 8 is better-written, but still an announcement of the same acquisition and still routine; and ref 9 is an unreliable piece by a "Forbes contributor". The lack of improvement is so stark that I seriously considered G4ing it again. Delete. —Cryptic 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just a quick browse I found references articles that are not press release.--Cube b3 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any editor may, during this discussion,especially when they declare that they have foiund good new references improve the article and ask for it to be reconsidered under Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard once improved. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 *Two years ago we deleted this because it was almost entirely unsourced and the only sources anybody could find were press releases and routine announcements.  Now we have a new article with mostly ''those same sources'' in them - not even new marketing material and reports of funding, but the same ones that were available and rejected before.  The few that postdate the deletion are no better: [https://www.dailysabah.com/business/finance/turkish-fintech-firm-papara-acquires-pakistan-based-sadapay/amp Ref 7] is an announcement of an acquisition consisting almost entirely of quotes with the remaining two sentences verbatim from a press release; [https://tribune.com.pk/story/2469254/turkish-fintech-buys-sadapay ref 8] is better-written, but still an announcement of the same acquisition and still routine; and [https://www.forbes.com/sites/zennonkapron/2023/07/21/south-asia-ex-indias-burgeoning-fintech-opportunities/?sh=1439229e757f ref 9] is an unreliable piece [[WP:FORBESCON|by a "Forbes contributor"]].  The lack of improvement is so stark that I seriously considered G4ing it again.  Delete. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' just a quick browse I found references articles that are not press release.--[[User:Cube b3|Cube b3]] ([[User talk:Cube b3|talk]]) 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
-* '''Comment''': Any editor may, during this discussion,''especially when they declare that they have foiund goof new references'' improve the article and ask for it to be reconsidered under [[Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard]] once improved. 🇺🇦&nbsp;[[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]]&nbsp;🇺🇦 17:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
+* '''Comment''': Any editor may, during this discussion,''especially when they declare that they have foiund good new references'' improve the article and ask for it to be reconsidered under [[Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard]] once improved. 🇺🇦&nbsp;[[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]]&nbsp;🇺🇦 17:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)