Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuapay


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Kuapay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only for promotions. no encyclopedia notability is here. References are highly questionable. Enterpreneur, Mashable, Tech crunch can write about a startup who is no where notable or even you can become contributor to write about yourself. Light2021 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as although this may not be damningly explosively and continuously blatant as others, the content and sources themselves explain it alone and show it's simply advertising, complete with the sheer specifics about it, so although this is a different case than others, it still boils to something unsubstantial and unconvincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's nothing special, but there are reliable sources establishing some level of notability. Claims of unreliable sources are overblown. tedder (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * if you say so, why keep then? :) you can read if you like: Notability means impact or No one really cares . Light2021 (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I believe if you took the time to look, is an experienced administrator who would already bee aware of the "essays" you pointed out. Also, I am not sure if someone already has been essays have little weight over policies and guidelines. This bull in a china shop conduct with your AfD nominations and comments is starting to border on WP:DISRUPTPOINT.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * no question on the contributors. But seems like you are coming up with arguments not on topic but on my personal AfD. As you did on my Talk page or probably going on every discussions. sometimes we need to read something, I am not doubting, whether the senior editor has knowledge or not, in same case as you cite policies or guidelines, it does not mean no one read them. You are just trying to make a point as per wikipedia guidelines or putting the perspective. I did not understand the need for your comment there. as if you never cite GNC or other policies on every discussions. Light2021 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Reasonably deep coverage from several reliable sources including a Q&A at Entrepreneur (magazine). OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Like this one https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/220732, this magazine is no different than recently deleted The Next Web, Yourstory and blocked Red Herring Awards. This magazine has no credible Journalistic approach. and article can be written by any kind of writer from PR agents to company officials themselves. Highly Questionable reference on notability. On the second though what we get " A Profile" written on Wikipedia". What are we making for such companies. A Directory? Doubtful anyone knows beyond a particular geography oe even their own industry. Non-notable and not adds any value to Encyclopedia material. Need to do assessment on Wikipedia Notability impact! And if we consider that article by any reason, it is already there. Why you need to make Wikipedia article based on interview conducted by magazine? We need substantial coverage and depth. It is missing here. This is not a News Distribution Channel. Light2021 (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.     <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kuapay to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Examining those articles still only finds what the company has either published, republished or influenced for their own advertising and advertising materials, especially TechCrunch which has noticeably not been taken seriously here at AfD because of the sheer willingness of republishing a company's own advertising. Because there's advertising concerns, that's not something we compromise with nor should we consider. SwisterTwister   talk  07:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Why relist this when it's had more than sufficient participation to close?— S Marshall  T/C 13:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP Lack of in-depth independent coverage in RS.  Refs listed are typical blurbs on a startup that originate with company interviews and press releases.  They are all from 2013 and I find nothing newer.  <b style="color:#00FF00">MB</b> 15:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Refs listed are typical blurbs on a startup that originate with company interviews and press releases. – I don't consider the articles from ABC, La Tercera, and El Confidencial to be "typical blurbs on a startup that originate with company interviews and press releases". Would you clarify why you believe this? I believe the articles meet WP:CORPDEPTH for discussing Kuapay's history and products in detail. They are all from 2013 and I find nothing newer. – Notability and Kuapay has received sustained significant coverage in reliable sources from 2011–2014 based on the sources I posted above. The es:Diario Financiero article I posted was published in 2014. Cunard (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON, as a page an unremarkable business with no indications of notability or significance just yet. Sources are weak and do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as they mostly relate to launch publicity, as in "Mobile Payments Startup Kuapay Grabs $4 Million Investment, Readies Global Expansion". This is a typical startup blurb focused on company aspirations and self-promotion. Let's wait until it achieves its planned global expansion and then create an encyclopedia article. Otherwise, this is a WP:NOTNEWS situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete --- WP:TOOSOON applies here; at present, allowing this page to exist would amount to nothing more than WP serving as Kuapay's PR rep.  Mystic Technocrat (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are page after page of articles in Google and Google news, many of them in foreign languages.  Yes, there is an unexplained reduction of coverage in recent years, but not enough to be a clear issue.  Kuapay is starting to appear in Google books.  Wikipedia notability is thus established.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a 4:3 of votes here for Delete, but I'll comment to simply state "pages and pages of articles" for sources is not convincing, since the analysis above, as it is has shown all available links to be advertising, including either paid or self-republished by the company itself, therefore we cannot automatically confide in sources without actually analyzing them as I have myself above. Therefore, the Keep votes have then not substantiated themselves after said analysis or to at least acknowledge the concerns. Also "unexplained less coverage in years, but not enough to be an issue" is itself showing how the company itself is not even significant, therefore it explains the fact they simply paid and republished for news attention themselves, hence not independent or convincing. We should not compromise with advertisements simply because another publication offered to publish their own advertising, because it would damn us from being better and different from advertising-hosting websites. To summarize, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply here, so any triviality such as WP:GNG be damned, since it means nothing against advertising. SwisterTwister   talk  02:30, 21 November 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.