Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TransferMate

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. T. Canens (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TransferMate

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

This one is too promotional, in my opinion, but I'm leaving it up to a broader discussion. Orange Mike | Talk 23:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike Can you be more specific? Maybe I could change it so it doesn't sound that promotional. My opinion is that it doesn't sound that promotional, after all the statements in this article are from trusted sources like The Sunday Business Post, FinExtra, Business and Finance, IrishTech news and so on...not mine. Is the 'Media Attention' section that worries you? Or something else? I've seen some other brand pages in wikipedia in this sector using very similar article structure, so I though it'll be better not to experiment and do it the way other big brand pages are done, especially when it comes to my first article. Appreciate all contribution to WikiPedia and if you decide to delete my article, I'd be glad to see more specific reasons and why not advises for writing style. I am a beginner, but definitely not a spammer or related to any company.--Anstoyanov (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated use of words like "easily", "with ease", "successfully", and the ever-repulsive "solution" reek of promotion and peacockery. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Orange Mike, I agree with you and have made some changes. --Anstoyanov (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam with tell-tale section of "Media Attention". An unremarkable business going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman I can see many other articles about companies using 'media attention' section used the same way - TransferWise, Currencyfair and more. Still I have changed it to Awards and have listed only the awards there. Is that the only reason you wish to delete this page? --Anstoyanov (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep though could still use some trimming (I did a pass at the stuff that appear obvious to me). A number of the sources are good, and the organization did receive some rewards from its industry groups: so meets minimum threshold for notability, but could use some more context from sources that do a little bit more investigative work, when reporting. Sadads (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV seems to be demonstrated and verifiable (Google news search returns a reasonable amount of non-trivial coverage). That said, as noted by the nominator and other editors, at the time of nom this article was appallingly promotional in tone - something that needs addressing and monitoring (if kept). Guliolopez (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as policy WP:NOT applies here since the sourcing is simply published and republished PR, regardless whoever published it and therefore we have no genuine substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The promotional tone has been improved - what about the sources? Please bring up specific examples. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 12 January 2017 (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.