Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CurrencyTransfer.com


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

CurrencyTransfer.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Example of the standard article on a new company as normally written by paid editors (of course any particular case might be someone imitating them in good faith, but the contribution pattern of this editor suggests otherwise.) Still a very small business. Most of the content is about the initial funding, the general subject of money transfer brokerage, and the standard retelling by the founders of how they happened to meet, and why they created it --based on no objective evidence but their own word. (personally I regard the inclusion of this in a business article as diagnostic). The references are either trivial mentions of promotional interviews based on their own PR.  DGG ( talk ) 12:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Fails WP:WEB. On a different note, the article creator did an impressive job of writing that article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  13:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG based on the sources in the article. Despite being a new company, it meets notability guidelines. Just because it is new, that doesn't mean that it cannot be notable. Wired, Startups , and Tech Radar to name a few.
 * Comment - Are we deleting this for suspected paid editing or for not meeting notability guidelines? Seems to me if the article creator has a COI, we should look for neutrality with the article. If it is neutral and notable, then why delete? According to User:AKS.9955, the article creator did an impressive job. Not sure why we would delete it then if it is notable and the creator did an impressive job.--TTTommy111 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep How did this article wind up in AfD? The first five references are features.009o9 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment When I said "the article creator did an impressive job" I did not say that the article is notable, I merely said he did a good job in writing. Just because someone writes an article nicely does not make it notable; the same way just because an article is not well articulated does not make it non-notable. Please dont mix two different things here. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  08:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The reliable source coverage seems to point to this being worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The article was written by a single purpose account as almost all edits he/she done were about CurrencyTransfer.com. However, given the company's coverage in the startup world (ie http://www.techradar.com/news/software/business-software/how-currencytransfer-com-is-simplifying-business-foreign-exchange-1234246 and http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-03/21/startup-of-the-week-currency-transfer ), they meet Wikipedia's notability standard. For that, the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CerealKillerYum (talk • contribs) 09:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone can prove that the articles were paid or come from a section of the site that has no editorial policy, I'm willing to change my vote -CerealKillerYum (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I have concerns over undisclosed paid editing here, but that issue aside, the article does appear to be the centre of a few notable and reliable third party publications such as the Wired article. I think this article barely scraps by WP:GNG. WP:IDONTLIKEIT just isn't strong enough here to sway me to delete. Mkdw talk 21:51, 1 September 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.