Talk:POLi Payments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Australia (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconPOLi Payments is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Companies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

COI concerns[edit]

Just flagging a continuing concern about the COI edits here. This page has a history of COI edits. The latest removal of negative press from a IP follows this concern. (The IP is from Melbourne, Australia. Note the registered address of the company is in Melbourne.) peterl (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just reverted a removal from an IP-only wiki user. Raises concern about COI, as geo location was (again) from same city as previous COI edits. peterl (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Another[edit]

Another self promotion from same city as previous COI edits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=POLi_Payments&type=revision&diff=731433146&oldid=730752993
peterl (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And another[edit]

And another removal of negative information from same city as previous COI edits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=POLi_Payments&curid=22600921&diff=767136450&oldid=758934696
peterl (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And another[edit]

And another removal of negative information from same city as previous COI edits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=POLi_Payments&diff=prev&oldid=788785874
peterl (talk)

And another[edit]

And another removal of negative information from same city as previous COI edits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=POLi_Payments&type=revision&diff=821539685&oldid=821536205
peterl (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Vote Count close[edit]

As usual Vote numbers are being considered to close th AfD. Obvious no one has time to contribute or read the discussions, if the article takes too much time to response, Vote number is the obvious choice. Such as this several articles are present or being kept, where there are no sign of Encyclopedic notability, and No one really cares why they even exist. Only benefit comes for the company itself. Light2021 (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Hello Light2021. No, it was not a mere vote-count close. To put it simple, several sources were provided and discussed during the AfD, the article was expanded/rewritten, and while not unanimously a large majority of the editors found the sources reliable and in depht enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I also disregarded the Pyrusca's vote (the sources are decent but the tone of the article is jsut promotional in tone) because AfD is not for cleanup and the comment itself suggest the subject is ultimately notable. While you could well consider your arguments stronger than the keep-voters, your position failed to achieve consensus. You are ultimately welcome in improving the article and rendering it as neutral as possible, if you feel it is still promotional. --Cavarrone 14:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Because of such reasoning Wikipedia has become a Spam directory for such company, even the common sense has failed such company to being a part of Encyclopedia material. This has made Wikipedia like another PR channel of news distribution, where few coverage can save any kind of corporate garbage in the name of WP:CORPDEPTH. Light2021 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)