Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlexPay

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 delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FlexPay

[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)

Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. References are to press releases, FlexPay's own website, or a pay-for-award site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First, the awards-site link isn't a pay-for-award company - Great Place to Work is an institute that partners with Fortune to make their 100 Best Companies to Work For annual list. But more importantly, after some cleanup only 1 link goes to FlexPay's site, and none are to a press release. I've now included articles from Betakit, Railsbank, Forbes & PYMNTS. I'm not usually an article creator here, I usually just optimize images, so you'll have to excuse my poor first version of FlexPay. With the references I've now added, I believe that WP:CORPDEPTH should be satisfied.ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; sourcing is passing and / or WP:SPIP. The award is not significant. Notability is not inherited from the other companies that the company's product integrates with. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, particularly with K.e.coffman. There is simply no SIGCOV about the company itself, and it is otherwise non-notable. PK650 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [[1]] is not significant coverage
[[2]] was written by a forbes "contributor" and dedicates one sentence to FlexPay: "Payment gateway FlexPay uses AI to predict and prevent credit card declines."
[[3]] has a prominent button that says "learn how to get on this list". These lists are a fraud. I used to work at a place that appeared on such lists constantly. Getting listed required some effort by the HR and PR folks and employees had to be "encouraged" to vote, but whoever wants to be on such a list can be on it. Provided you pay, of course. See [4]
[[5]] looks like a usable source.
[[6]] Per their about page, "PYMNTS.com is reinventing the way in which companies share relevant information about the initiatives that shape the future of payments and commerce and make news." Also: "Business Wire, the global market leader in commercial news and disclosure distribution, is the exclusive press release service for PYMNTS.com"
[[7]] is not a news outlet, but a FinTech company.
[[8]] is not a news outlet, but a hosting company
[[9]] is the subject itself
[[10]] is not a news outlet, but a software company.
[[11]] is not a news outlet, but a software company.
[[12]] is a press release
[[13]] is a press release.
In summary, there is one source that seems to be independent, reliable and somewhat in-depth. That is not sufficient. Vexations (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the detailed analysis Vexations - I'll remember it for future work! ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor sources provided as per Vexations. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2020 (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.