Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citrus Pay


 * 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.  So Why  13:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Citrus Pay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has been deleted at least twice through proposed deletion, but as it is getting recreated/restored, I think it's time to discuss it here. I've prodded it myself as WP:CORPSPAM, failing WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG. Most refs are press releases/mentions in passing. The only thing approach in-depth reliable coverage are a few paragraphs in Business Line, and then there is a bit more than your standard press release about PayU buyout at. Still, I don't think that's enough for us to have a stand-alone article. The only alternative to deletion I can think of would be some sort of merger to PayU, but that already got deleted at Articles for deletion/PayU India, and survives only as few sentences at Ibibo. I doubt there is much to merge, given lack of targets. Bottom line - corpsam as usual. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Thank for your time to review it, . There are many more links available and will add it for the overall coverage and extend it. Please be patient for some time to reconsider it or even to contribute to it, reposting it as I truly believe it has a place in Wikipedia and in Indian startup ecosystem. Also, a Google search on the name CitrusPay will fetch enough news articles in the name, happy to add if needed but thought of keeping it minimal. Theaphorist (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and WP:SALT - Yet more corporate spam. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- an article on the same company was deleted via PROD in Oct 2016, so I would recommend salting at this time. Like the first time, I'm unable to find sources that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, just typical tech startup blotter. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient coverage in independent RSs. Rentier (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. While sources might qualify as "independent", the article themselves do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not know how this or PayU can be deleted. It is not just about being promotional, They are highly recognized company, not in terms of popularity or getting media attention but building Indian History for Payment and fintech domains. Millions of Customers, Billions of Transactions. They might not know how to remove promotional tone of the article but on the ground of Standards and Encyclopedic in nature. Everything is here. Its like deleting Ebay or Paypal, can we do that? seriously would be a joke. or Its just about every Indian startup company is non-notable. They are seriously way beyond any American origin startups which has easily placed in Wikipedia, and easily passed Corpodepth, and GNG guidelines. So many votes are there, highly doubtful whether it will be protected. this is ridiculously biased. Even I am doing AfD of nonsense Indian startups, but few are seriously notable. Light2021 (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I just point out that even the iPhone had its article deleted from Wikipedia when it first appeared - it's not an indication that there can never be an article about this company, it's simply the case that it's too soon for this company. I'm sure that if the situation changes and the applicable notability criteria can be met, a completely non-conflicted person will come along and write a neutral article. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have high regards for the Wikipedia & its every single contributor, no matter how small or big his/her contributions are. Being the primary contributor of this article, let me reassure (and I'm ready to prove if there is a way establish) you that I'm a "non-conflicted person" and my intent is to contribute to the Wikipedia by deserving edits and articles related to startup ecosystem, technology companies, businesses in India and elsewhere. I'm putting my personal time into it because I think it's just the right thing to do. If the tone needs to be corrected, why not volunteer to improve the article or suggest edits than marking it AFD? Unfortunately all articles I have created; FINO PayTech, Id fresh foods, Little Eye Labs, Citrus Pay, & Paytm Payments Bank had the similar fate despite having multiple trusted sources, some neutrality & fairness would have helped. Wish "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built & Don't hope the house will build itself" was put into practice too. Couldn't agree more. Theaphorist (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPhone is one of the most unintentionally curious discussions ever held at WP. But most startup projects end very differently.  DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  09:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial accomplishments, minor company. The references are either notices of the sort of spam newspers publish, but written or instigated by PR people. There's nothing wrong with press releases, but they do not belong in WP or used as a source for notability . I don't think they belong in newspapers either, but we cannot do anything directly about that. What we can do, and should, is at least keep them from influencing the encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 12 July 2017 (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.