Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impak Finance


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Impak Finance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I previously placed a WP:PROD on this page, with the rationale "An article on a new enterprise preparing for launch, with only propositional coverage at this point. At best, too soon to have demonstrable notability." The Prod notice was removed, and the article has been expanded with more material on what the firm intends to do (with promotional prose about "disruptive financial technologies" and "wishing to change the world", which may suggest WP:G11) and the overall marketplace in which it sees this opportunity, but still lacks sources which can confirm that the firm itself has attained notability. Indeed a previous Blog reference has been removed, leaving only the primary source. I am therefore bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep

EDIT: I have made a large scale upheaval of the article as of October 2nd, 2016. Comments by myself are also listed below. Any new opinion should take these changes into account. Thank you

ORIGINAL: I am sorry for everything and for creating a page in such a clumsy manner. The corporation itself leads to confusion. While it's funding and activities are completed, it is true that the rollout of products is only partially deployed, thus leaving a significant portion of the article to the plans of the company than it's current business practices. I was given a plan to put on Wikipedia. I am well aware that it is not as 'wikipediable' and indeed too subjective to local standards. It's only my second wikipedia page creation (my first in english). I am also scrambling to get the online access to the sources of the document. Two have been added since this AfD was updated, other are on their way. I would have wished the open-world of wikipedia to contribute, or at least, edit the flaws of the article to make it up to the standards of Wikipedia. I should keep editing it for the rest of the day and tomorrow. If, unfortunatly, the decision is to delete it, I will accept it (I saved a copy aside) and will return it properly for a (better) second shot. Truly.

Thank you

Et443367 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * noting your comment, "I was given a plan to put on Wikipedia", it appears you are editing on behalf of another person or entity. Please note the obligation to WP:DISCLOSE. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Noted, thank youEt443367 (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Comment

I've made a major upheaval, adding two international independent sources to the notability debate. As well deleted the 'self-promotional' prose. Thank you Et443367 (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've struck through your Keep on this one - you've already had one Keep. Only one Keep or Delete per person allowed - anything else has to be a Comment. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks too promotional for my liking. So far as I can see, it doesn't even come into action until next year. WP:CRYSTAL might be worth reading. You say, "I am also scrambling to get the online access to the sources of the document.". This implies to me that you are trying to get things online to prove notability. If I'm right there, that's not how it works. Sources need to be reliable and independent WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment If I may defend myself here, I was given a tag about notability to which I accepted responsibility and which I applied corrections to the article. Two of the sources are independent reportings by notable Canadian national news outlets: weekly newspaper Les Affaires and national public broadcaster Radio-Canada (french arm of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). I strongly believe that fits the reliability definition of news organisations listed at WP:NEWSORG and while I did look for it, I couldn't find any minimum number of such sources needed to pass notability (my sole other wikipedia creation, es:TÉLUQ, has only one and has never ever been considered for AfD). As for 'Too soon' aspect of it, the shareholding public offering is happening on October 12th,2016 (in 10 days from the moment I'm writing this sentence), that is non speculative and fits to WP:CRYSTALBALL number one's criteria: ″Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.″ As for the ″scrambling″ aspect of the sources I talked about, they served to cover the ″Market″ subsection of the article, where statistics are displayed but I only hold physical documents (these subsections even had their sources listed directly in the text). I never created any ″source″ solely for passing filters.

While I am open to further review some aspects of the article, especially it's ″product″ and ″market″ subsections, I think deleting the entire article would be counterproductive since the article itself would be left on standby before respawning in less than a matter of weeks/months.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I still want to save the article and put the corrections needed to do so. I am sorry for mistakes I may have made and I accept full responsibility. Thank you.

Et443367 (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for being cynical, but the appearance of an article in the run-up to something only makes me more certain that promotion is the purpose. We get this a lot here: political candidates, soon-to-be released games, Li'l Whoever's next mixtape, oh, all sorts of stuff. As to info in document form, if it hasn't been published then it can't be used as a reference. It's not verifiable WP:V. And if things can't be referenced, they are liable to go. We are stricter on referencing than many of the other Wikipedias, as I have found when seeking references for an English version of an article that was in trouble. This is probably because we have been going longer and have a lot more articles. In the early days of this Wikipedia, they weren't so bothered, and early articles may be deficient in this respect compared with today's material. Peridon (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Some organisations just happen to have their cult following where followers post about their new features whenever they feel they can. Apple and Nintendo are perfect examples of this. I can find myself guilty of this (I do not work, nor am I even a customer of that organisation). But the important aspect here is check if the article follows the rules and I do defend the notability of the page. The valid and independent sources are there. Deleting the entire article would only lead it to respawn in a matter of weeks, as soon as the next steps are achieved, thus rendering the deletion useless (and prohibit other wikipedia contributors to make their own contributions during that timeframe).

I did leave aside in a word document the second part of the article, so to republish it when proper sources will be in order. I just didn't want to see the entire creation be deleted over a single, controversial, paragraph. I feel it is important that this newborn article gets it's chance to live (especially if it does follow all the rules), so new contributors get the chance to add in information as it gets out in the media. It remains, after all, the raison d'être of wikipedia.

We still wish to save this article and make it perfect under wiki rules.

Truly,

Et443367 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PROMO with a dose of WP:TNT. The article exists solely to promote the business, with such puffed-up and vague language as "...aiming to address social and environmental issues...". Will it cure cancer next? :-) Nothing to salvage here; sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. This is clearly WP:TOOSOON; let's have the company first solve these "social and environmental issues". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article isn't revoltingly promotional, but it is still essentially promotional.  This is a WP:RISING bank, but it's WP:TOOSOON as it hasn't even fully launched yet.  There's no reason an article can't be made once it starts doing interesting things and begins to receive coverage that passes WP:CORPDEPTH, if in fact that is what happens.  FalconK (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Author here. I start to get the consensus here and I understand it. I want to apologize for my mistake, I will accept the deletion of this article and learn from my mistake as I get more experience. Truly. Thank you for your contribution and dedication for Wiki. Et443367 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 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.