Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azimo (3rd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Closing as keep, GNG assumed to be met as the sources presented have not been challenged. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Azimo
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Deleted twice, most recently in May 2019, recreated five months later. The latest author, MSteinburg, makes much of new source Save on Send (more at Talk:Remittance). But it's the blog of a corporate website. It has zero reputation for accuracy and fact checking. No books or journalistic sources cite it. It has none of the characteristics of a reliable source.

I agree with the prior nomination that the BBC piece is the best source. Beyond that, there are barely 100 words in The Gaurdian, an advertorial video WP:INTERVIEW produced by Reuters and posted on The Washington Post website, and half a dozen press-release-based announcements of capital raising of the sort explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH. My own WP:BEFORE convinces me this fails WP:NCORP. See also WP:CORPSPAM. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. As I stated in prior AfDs, this fails WP:NORG. Coverage outside press-releases is to sparse IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. That was your historic conclusion. Does it still hold, given the current references and sources? gidonb (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:NORG. Specifically WP:ORGCRIT. gidonb (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which sources do you feel are simultaneously: significant, independent, reliable, and secondary? --Worldbruce (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of the references count toward ORGCRIT. But let me focus on where we agree: the single one that you discuss at length is not good! gidonb (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  This is a detailed review of Azimo.  This is a detailed overview of how to use Azimo.  This is a detailed review of Azimo. The website has editorial guidelines about independence, objectivity, accuracy, and accountability. </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Azimo to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC) </li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This topic concerns the company and not the App. For that reason, articles which only contain reviews of the App but fail to provide in-depth information on the company fail the criteria for establishing notability of the company (WP:CORPDEPTH). But there are at least two references that appear to meet the criteria. This TechRadar reference provides information both on the company and on the software and meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Similarly, this review from finder.com also provides in-depth information on the company that meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Topic meets NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.