Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europay International


 * 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 no consensus. Leaning towards keep. People disagree about the quality of the sources, but there's clearly no consensus that they're inadequate.  Sandstein  21:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Europay International

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"entity" that was merged into MasterCard. The article hasn't had any sources since 2014 and nothing comes up for it in a Google search except for Wikipedia spin off sites and brief mentions in personal blogs. Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * A web search is hardly the way to look for independent reliable sources about just about anything, let alone an entity that hasn't existed for nearly 20 years. More focussed searches find sources such as, and very many more. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad you found a few sources. Did you find them by going through your local library's catalogue? ;) BTW, I'm not sure how much those sources count toward nobility. They seem questionable to me, but I'll let someone else decide that. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I found them by a simple Google Scholar search, as can be done by simply clicking on the word "scholar" at the top of this discussion. More can be found by a Google Books search. What seems questionable about them? They look like cast-iron reliable sources to me: much better than the random web sites that you seem to be looking for. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing is questionable about them. Just that you said doing a web search isn't the way to find reliable sources, but that's exactly how you found them. That said, the second source is trivial coverage. WP:NCORP says product releases don't count for notability. All the other sources on Google Scholar seem to be the same and not specifically about the company. It's not like I didn't look through them to be sure when I did the AfD. Notability isn't inherited. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you just read the first couple of paragraphs of the second source you will see that the whole paper is about an initiative of Europay. And as I said, there are many more sources found by these simple searches. Just take a look rather than do web searches as you said you had. These are searches of academic papers and books, not the web. This is a very notable entity that was one of the two biggest credit card operators in Europe for many years. Just recognise that you were wrong rather than dig yourself deeper into a hole. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as it seems to easily pass GNG and pretty clearly at least fits in the realm of WP:CORPDEPTH with a straightforward google search. Have some time this morning to put those on the page, just filtering out the ones that aren't significant enough to really help with notability. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that I don't appreciate your effort, but all the sources you added are trivial coverage and don't establish notability according to WP:NCORP. Generally speaking, sources about product releases and mergers don't work. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete References for the most part are about MasterCard buying Europay and they are simply regurgitation of press releases. Other citations are merely passing mentions, sometimes a single sentence. A lot of quantity but nothing that meets simple requirement of in-depth discussions by reliable, independent sources Glendoremus (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The peer-reviewed academic papers that I linked above are in-depth discussions by reliable, independent sources, and many more such sources are available by simply clicking on "books" or "scholar" in the links at the top of this discussion. Please take note of the previous discussion before making such an uninformed comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, just in case anyone is counting votes rather than looking at the quality of arguments. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTVOTE. Narky Blert (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I know, but not everyone closes discussions in that way. I have made extensive comments above and below. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete None of the sources show WP:SIGCOV required by WP:NCORP. Everything is just WP:ROUTINE merger/reformation announcements and are without depth. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the academic papers that I linked above meet that description. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Dude you can't be serious. Those aren't "academic papers". The first is some non-notable, not peer reviewed journal, that by their own site description ANYONE can write for. The second was written by an employee of Europay. If you want to reply or contribute to the AfD discussion in a meaningful manner, please don't try to pass off unreliable and primary articles as "academic papers". Sheesh. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you are the one not being serious. Where on Earth do you get the idea that the European Business Review, published by Emerald Publishing, is not peer-reviewed? Yes, anyone can submit a paper, as with any academic journal, but, by their own site description, it will only be published if it passes peer review. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If that journal was even marginally worth its salt it'd be indexed in JCR or Scopus. It's not. Fail. At least you gave up on trying to push that second "academic paper" that was written by the company. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is indexed by Scopus, where it is rated 10th out of 81 journals in the category "Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)". First you lied about it not being peer-reviewed and now you are lying about it not being indexed by Scopus. Please stop. And I stand by the "very many more" that I said in my first post to this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - both sources that Phil Bridger has identified were papers written by Europay employees. The second has already been identified as such, the first was written by “Marc Dutrieux (Senior Manager, Smart Card Development at Europay International.)” Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just getting ridiculous. The subject was one of the two credit card processors that dominated the European market until it merged with Mastercard, rather than representing it as it had done before, in 2002. That fact is sourced in the article. This is one of the most clear-cut notable articles that I have ever seen at AfD. I despair for the future of Wikipedia if people can actually support deletion of this article. OK, I didn't go out of my way to check the credentials of the authors of the articles I linked above, but they were just two of the hundreds of reliable sources that can be found simply by clicking the searches spoon-fed by the nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, I disagree. And your belligerent and argumentative attitude to people who have disagreed with you during this debate has been noted. Please WP:AGF in future. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you disagree with? That this was one of the two dominant players in the European credit card market for many years? As I said, that is reliably sourced, so if you disagree then you disagree with the whole basis of Wikipedia. It is very difficult to assume good faith of people who refuse to look at the evidence. And if people utter lies about a journal being peer-reviewed or indexed by Scopus then of course I will call that out. Why should I let lies go unchallenged? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I wonder if perhaps we might be missing the big picture here. The EMV standard for credit cards (the kind that has the chip in it as opposed to just the magnetic stripe), for instance, was named for the companies that founded the standard: EuroPay, Mastercard, and Visa. Color me skeptical, but I doubt that the first company was just some little, non-notable company. In fact, it appears that newspapers from the 90s mention them as one of the "giants" of the industry to be mentioned in the same breath as Mastercard and Visa: . I agree that sources are difficult to find, but I think this is more due to age than anything.  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – Bibliomaniac15 summarizes my thoughts well. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep. Newspapers.com returns 135 hits, some of which do appear to provide discussion past mere passing mention of the company and its products or mergers. There is also coverage in a number of books, for example:
 * FBIS Report: Central Eurasia, Iss. 47-56 (1994), p. 79: "In 1992, after the sole Russian member of Europay International, the USSR Bank for Foreign Economic Activity, ceased its banking activity in November 1991, Europay International started to accept other Russian banks as members";
 * Belgium, Economic and Commercial Information (c. 2001), p. 147: "Europay International, based in Waterloo, Belgium, is the European banks' leading provider of personal payment products and related services".
 * BD2412 T 02:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There are sufficient references (at least two) that (just about) meets the criteria for establishing notability, that is significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. For example Developing and Managing a Successful Payment Cards Business by Jeff H. Slawsky and Samee Zafar discusses the founding of the company as a merger between Eurocheque and Eurocard. Also Online Payment Solutions: The evolution of Visa and Mastercard. provides a paragraph on the history of Europay. While there doesn't appear to be entire tomes written about this topic, since there are references that meet the criteria for notability, topic meets GNG/NCORP.  HighKing++ 19:39, 18 April 2020 (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.