Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EWay


 * 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. The article has more garbage than good in the reference section, but Cunard has pretty much demonstrated it passes WP:GNG in this discussion, undercutting many of the delete votes, plus there is broad support to keep. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

EWay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References and sources consist only of announcements and press releases. These appear to rely on sources only related to the organization and discuss only new features or new business connections and the like. This is not journalistic reporting of the subject and are, instead, mundane and one-sided. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article cites 40 references including many from national/international news organizations and business journals. Coverage is significant and in-depth. Use of self-published sources (such as press releases) is limited and not unduly self-serving. Exclusions at WP:CORPDEPTH apply to few if any of the sources. Clear GNG pass. Article's tone is arguably somewhat promotional but not irretrievably so. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently what I wrote above wasn't read. However, I will amend my statement a little to include the above comment and say: 40 (as in 40) references and sources consist only of announcements and press releases. These appear to rely on sources only related to the organization and discuss only new features or new business connections and the like. This is not journalistic reporting of the subject and are, instead, mundane and one-sided. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I read your nomination; I disagree with it.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - While there are many press releases placed in this article, in terms of notability that's just a red herring as there is also very in-depth coverage like that from the Sydney Morning Herald and TechRadar that are not announcements or press releases. As Yeti Hunter states, it clearly passes WP:GNG.  Toning down the PROMO is a matter of regular editing, not deletion --Oakshade (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: the Sydney Morning Herald coverage used in the article is rather fluffy: Link. I don't believe it meets WP:CORPDEPTH as it's based on the interview with the founder and is run of the mill, i.e. "local company gets award". So it's a case of WP:TOOSOON, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While theSydney Morning Herald piece is very in-depth, WP:GNG makes no discrimination against in-depth "fluff" coverage as long as the in-depth coverage is by a reliable source that is independent of the topic, in which the SMH is.  The SMH could have an article entitled "EWay is the greatest company ever and everyone should use it" and that would still be acceptable coverage for notability reasons.  WP:MILL deals with mainspace WP articles, not coverage of their topics.  I think you meant to type WP:NOTNEWS but that applies to items like "announcements, sports, or celebrities", not coverage like for this topic.  WP:TOOSOON is meant for topics that have not yet passed GNG do it doesn't apply to this article. --Oakshade (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: while GNG is a guideline, WP:NOT is a policy. The article has the appearance of existing for the purpose of promoting the business, and the "fluffy" sources it's based on bears this out. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That WP:NOT is a policy is an irrelevant point. We know that.  As already stated WP:NOT and specifically WP:NOTNEWS applies to coverage like "announcements, sports, or celebrities" which the non-press release coverage is not.  If you'd like to change the policy WP:NOT to mean topics and coverage beyond "announcements, sports, or celebrities", you need to make your case on the WP:NOT talk page, not invent your own definition in a single AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO. The tone of the article is overly promotional and it reads like a vanity page. The details are mostly of partnerships and announcements, originating from the company, such as:
 * "Similar ventures have followed with the eWAY’s integration with NetSuite.[15] The integration allows NetSuite users to facilitate credit card payments online, by phone, fax or mail utilising NetSuite’s omnichannel approach.[16]" Etc, etc.
 * Such tone suggests to me that the purpose of the article is to promote the business, and not to inform the readers. Rather than wasting volunteer editor's time trying to maintain neutrality of the article, I suggest deleting until such time that the subject becomes notable based on truly independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If the sources were only press releases or non-independent such as your examples, I would agree. But they're not the only sources - it includes numerous articles from the SMH, BBC, The Australian, Business Insider, and others, thus demonstrating global notability. It passes GNG and WP:NCORP; in light of these facts, the promotional tone isn't reason for deletion.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry these sources do not qualify as significant coverage of the topic per WP:V, a core content policy, and/or independent coverage per WP:V. Do you have any reliable sources that cover this topic? Steve Quinn (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How does the Sydney Morning Herald not qualify per WP:V? A topic only "fails" WP:V if it's content is completely unverifiable, ie "Martians favorite passtime is curling."  To say reliable sources like the SMH,  TechRadar and The Australian fails WP:V is nonsensical and we're not sure what your point is. --Oakshade (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The SMH is at best trivial mention, meanwhile it is an announcement. And the main topic for this announcement is "AMEX" not E-way. Tech radar is an announcement, promotion, promotional, and the CEO is the only source for that article - this means it is not independent coverage and is also discouraged in COREDEPTH. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For purposes of determining notability WP:V is linked to reliable sources. And this is the point. None of these are reliable sources. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. trivial coverage, with the only detailed sources being promotional . If this meets the GNG, the GNG no longer  meets Wikipedia's needs, and fails the basic principle underlying WP:NOT, that WP *IS* an encyclopedia .   DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There is a smokescreen of sources in the article, but they are either not RS or routine coverage. A search for sources shows a lot of PR but hardly any significant RS. Many of the RS I found are routine news which seem to be redressed press releases. If the SMH source is the best we have, then I'm afraid I have to go with a delete. From what I see, the company is marginally notable and exactly in what we call WP:TOOSOON territory. It is an emerging company and maybe in 3-5 years there might be better coverage. But till that time, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There's plenty of good sources in the article as noted above. This is a content not notability issue. Deletion isn't the way to fix this. ZN3ukct (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the plenty of "good sources" were debunked. The RS which are left don't support notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no effective "debunking" of the good sources. The RS go in-depth of this company. --Oakshade (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not following -- which "good sources" were not debunked? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oaksdale, which RS go in-depth of this company - please post them and the "good sources' you mention, please post those too. This would be very helpful. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I should point out that User:ZN3ukct has since been indef blocked as a disruptive editor, after a self-nom RFA which was clearly a prank on the community. I'm not sure how much weight one should give to anything he has had to say, including his !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Matt Bullock, the founder and owner of Australia's biggest online merchant payments gateway eWay, will wade into the physical world on Tuesday with a new mobile payment device. The company will offer terminals provided by Quest and Mint Payments to its existing 20,000 business customers, with registrations for these being accepted in August. It hopes to pick up new customers and fend off competitors by offering better integration of payments with inventory and customer databases. It processed more than $4.6 billion transactions in the 2014 financial year and is expected to earn $12 million to $14 million in revenue in 2015. ...  eWay at present is the dominant payment gateway used by businesses in Australia to accept money online. But it is facing competition from foreign players such as Stripe and Square, backed by cashed-up entrepreneurs."  The article notes: "For entrepreneur Matt Bullock, his life as a boss began back in the 1990s, when he built a payment gateway long before the days of buying online was standard buyer behaviour. ... Now, with eWAY processing $1 in every $4 spent online in Australia, and clients like Canon, Qantas, Puma, Nissan on the books, Bullock finds himself the boss of 50-plus staff."  The article notes: "Online payment gateway eWay, which processes about 20 per cent of all internet purchases in Australia, is expanding to the United States to take on competitors such as Stripe and PayPal's Braintree in their home market. After starting life in the dotcom boom of the late 1990s, eWay, which sets up a connection with a bank for online businesses so they can get paid, has about 18,000 merchant customers, making it the dominant online payment processor here. It processed $4.6 billion in transactions in the 2014 financial year and is expected to earn $12 million to $14 million in revenue in 2015. But it is facing competition from cashed-up US competitors offering a faster, hassle-free set up with banks. Founder and 100 per cent owner Matt Bullock told The Australian Financial Review that eWay is rolling out a new, faster sign-up process in new markets it is entering in New Zealand and the US. It is similar to Stripe in that it takes over all the relationship with banks. eWay's service to date has left it to the merchant to set up and maintain relations with its bank and eWay provided the payment link."  The article notes: "Australian e-commerce platform eWAY is taking the fight up to the US heavyweights PayPal and Square, announcing an expansion into the omnichannel space with a mobile point of sale solution. The move means eWAY merchants — of which there are currently 20,000, from tradies to market stalls — can accept online payments anywhere. Matt Bullock, eWAY founder and chief executive, told The Australian merchants would no longer need to purchase, set up, and maintain a traditional eftpos terminal, while online retailers who wished to open physical stores could use the mPOS for an ­omnichannel payment solution. Mr Bullock said he decided to build an mPOS device on a recent trip to San Francisco, and has had 40 people working on the project full-time for months."</li> <li> The article notes: "Canberra multimillionaire Matt Bullock has sold his online transaction company for more than a thousand times the money in his bank when he started it. When the Pearce man developed eWAY 18 years ago, he had $50,000 to his name. On Friday, he sold it to American payment technology services giant Global Payments for $US50 million. Understandably, Mr Bullock feels a great sense of achievement from his brainchild that grew to doing 5.8 billion online purchases last year, or about a quarter of all internet transactions in Australia."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow eWay to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * That eWay in 2016 processed 5.8 billion purchases, which is 25% of all Internet transactions in Australia, strongly establishes that it is notable. Any promotional issues are minor and can be addressed through normal editing, not deletion. Editing policy and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- per above sources, I would have said redirect to Global Payments that acquired eWay, but this article does not appear to exist. The size of the transaction ($50M) does not indicated significance or importance of the target company either.
 * The sources above are mostly based on the interviews with the founder, so they could not be considered truly independent (and RS requirements for notability are more stringent vs just for content). The data presented (25% etc) emanates from the company, and is not likely to have been independently fact checked by the newspapers. So this is mostly marketing by the company and these claims are potentially unverifiable. So I'm not changing my !vote in view of the above sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I all see from the listed sources above are the same exact information that comes with expected company information, which includes company-supplied information. The worst of it is: "The company will offer terminals provided by Quest and Mint Payments to its existing 20,000 business customers, with registrations for these being accepted in August. It hopes to pick up new customers and fend off competitors by offering better integration of payments with inventory and customer databases"...."clients like Canon, Qantas, Puma, Nissan on the books, Bullock finds himself the boss of 50-plus staff."...."Understandably, Mr Bullock feels a great sense of achievement from his brainchild that grew to doing 5.8 billion online purchases last year". Saying that this is "significant, substantial and news" is the exact forms of advertisements attempted as shoehorns but they give no actual improvements to the article; as always, a named journalist and news source is exactly what churnalism is, and it's frequent to allow companies self-advertising. SwisterTwister   talk  08:12, 26 September 2016 (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.