Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CardFlex, Inc.


 * 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

CardFlex, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article by an SPA that was repeatedly deleted in the past as A7 and G11, 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

CardFlex is one of the biggest companies in its industry, with $4 billion in annual transactions. It also created and patented some of the more innovative products now used in its industry. That hardly describes a company that is not 'notable.' These attributes certainly place Cardflex above many smaller companies that currently have uncontested Wikipedia pages. The entry itself is objective about what the company is and what it does, and addresses the current FTC situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renee360 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC) — Renee360 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete 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. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: I spent a good deal of time combing through sources and working on the article. I think I brought it up to the best place it can be, given the available sourcing. But there's just not enough out there. Many of the mentions are trivial. I don't think notability has been established. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.