User talk:Dina Jones

Welcome
ukexpat (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

paypoint.net
Dina, please see my reply to your question at Talk:PayPoint. – ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

DumbBOT's edit to the Paypoint.net AfD, deletion process
DumbBOT is an automated "robot" that performs certain housekeeping tasks. In this case, I forgot to list the AfD discussion on the corresponding log, thus making it difficult for other users to find the discussion. The bot corrected my mistake.

The deletion discussion will remain open for a total of five days; then an admin will have a look, and if consensus favours deletion, the admin will perform the technical part. See the page on the deletion policy for an overview of processes. As I said on the article's talk page, the way to prevent deletion or the merge/redirect option (which would keep the article name, but move any content deemed significant to the PayPoint article and point anyone looking for PayPoint.net to that article) is to add reliable sources to the article that establish the company's notability. Yours, Huon (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Altough paypoint.net as a company is fairly new, it was actually born from a merger between secpay and metacharge both companies had been around for a long while and when paypoint.net was launched it received a high number of mentions online and offline and to this date it continues to do so.

With these facts in mind, when you mention adding reliable sources are these both internal and external sources?

Thanks again, (Dina Jones (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC))

Reliable sources
Dina, please see WP:RS for WP policy on what is and is not a reliable source. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding some sources to the Paypoint.net article. Unfortunately I doubt they're reliable by Wikipedia's standards. The Casino Gambling Web article seems to be a press release, and the Electronic Payments datasheet explicitly talks of PayPoint's products as our[s]. Thus, in both cases the information seems to be directly from PayPoint. Huon (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dina, thanks for the message on my talk page. The point in this case is not what constitutes a reliable source, but what the coverage is in those sources. For example, the opening words of WP:Corp are: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable]. The key words here are "significant coverage". The regurgitation or rewording of a press release does not IMHO constitute "significant coverage". An in depth analysis of company's business model, a description of the pros and cons of a particular company vs its competition etc in reliable, independent secondary sources probably would be significant coverage. I hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say the main problem of press releases is the "independent secondary sources" part of the above quote. I've asked for further opinions on the Gambling Web article here, and counting it as a primary source sounds appropriate to me. It's certainly not independent of PayPoint. In contrast, the 24dash.com and Forbes sources look pretty good to me, but unfortunately those don't mention PayPoint.com, but only its parent and its predecessors. Yours, Huon (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Huon, thanks for your help in this, if I was to change the casino source to the following url :http://www.crime-research.org/news/18.07.2008/3463/, would that be better? (Dina Jones (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC))
 * That url explicitly calls Moneyextra its source, so directly using http://www.moneyextra.com/news/Online-shoppers-getting-security-savvy.php seems better. I'm not sure whether that's truly an independent source; Monexextra hardly counts as "mainstream media", and the questions "shared" by PayPoint look a little strange for news, but it sure reads a lot less like a press release.
 * But I still fail to see why PayPoint.net is notable enough for its own article instead of a subsection of the main PayPoint article. These sources are passing mentions at best, and they don't really discuss PayPoint.net itself. Sure, one mentions it as "leading online payment provider", but what does that mean? What's PayPoint's share of the market? Do we know their business volume? Are there secondary sources discussing their business model? Right now, by the secondary sources the article should read "Paypoint.net is a sponsor of surveys on online payment security", because that's their only activity that has gathered some sort of coverage. Huon (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the new source (it's from finextra's News section in contrast to the "Company announcements" section), but it strengthens my point about a merger: It calls PayPoint.net "[t]he online arm of UK retail payment terminal provider PayPoint", explicitly linking the services offered to PayPoint plc. Maybe I'm too little of an expert on these businesses, but "using a PayPoint terminal to pay a bill" and "using a PayPoint terminal to pay an online purchase" sound rather similar to me, and yet one is offered by PayPint plc, the other by PayPoint.net. It looks as if PayPoint is integrating its online resources and its real-world resources to create a joint whole. Yours, Huon (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)