User talk:Renee360

Speedy deletion nomination of CardFlex, Inc.

Hello Renee360,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged CardFlex, Inc. for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of CardFlex, Inc.

Hello Renee360,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged CardFlex, Inc. for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. SS13 18:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of CardFlex, Inc.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on CardFlex, Inc. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. KH-1 (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CardFlex, Inc. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CardFlex, Inc. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CardFlex, Inc. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

I've fixed your deletion review listing, but a few comments on it. Firstly you don't actually put forward any "argument" as to what was deficient about the deletion discussion, we won't discuss something forever so discussions come to an end, unless there was a substantive problem with that it's unlikely the review will lead anywhere (See the purpose section of DRV. Secondly you need to inform the deleting admin that you've listed it - see step 4 in the DRV instructions. Good luck. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Thanks I wish to seek further clarification regarding the decision to delete the entry on CardFlex and, if necessary, appeal this decision by whatever means are available at Wikipedia.

I would also like to address the reasons cited for its dismissal.

1. “An article…apparently created only to document a lawsuit brought by the FTC against it and other companies. While the incident itself might be notable, the company is not.”

Why would a company want to publicize a lawsuit brought against it on one of the most popular websites online? This is certainly not the reason the company decided to create a Wikipedia entry. As for the company not being ‘notable’; as it states in the ‘keep’ post, it is a company with $4 billion in annual transactions, and one that is an innovator of patented automated equipment used in the merchant processing industry. If these achievements were not detailed as much as they could have been, it is only because we did not want to cross the line from objective information into marketing or promotion.

2. As far as I could find, the only Reliable Source coverage this company has received was about the fraud case - in which they were one of several companies involved and not the principal. This item even suggests that they are no longer allowed to provide card processing services, which appears to have been their main line of business. If the above statements about the company's notability could be documented by Independent Reliable Sources, I would reconsider.

First, the suggestion that CardFlex no longer provides card processing services is incorrect. As to reliable source coverage, you must understand that this is not an industry that, as a whole, garners much in the way of media attention. There are mentions of the company on pages belonging to Visa, to the BBB and to the US Patent office; there was wider media coverage of the FTC suit in a number of publications online and off.

Lastly, the idea to create a CardFlex page for Wikipedia was inspired by the number of companies of all sizes and types already listed on the site.

We cannot understand why CardFlex is being perhaps held to a higher standard than some other companies with entries now on Wikipedia. These include:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberforth_Smaller_Companies_Trust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_Motors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabertooth_Games

In the last example above, the company is now defunct, but its Wikipedia entry remains.

There are many other examples that could be cited of companies that are arguably less notable than CardFlex. Given that reality, it is hard not to view this rejection as a result of the FTC action, and the bias of an editor.

Please advise on how this decision may be appealed.

Thanks- 360Renee