Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obopay


 * 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. Mike V •  Talk  00:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Obopay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been deleted six times: once by PROD and five times by speedy deletion. I think it is time to settle the issue of whether it should exist once and for all.

It is a largely promotional article, with no evidence of notability. At least one reference is a link to a page that does not mention Obopay, one is a dead link. Another one is a page at www.obopay.com. The rest appear to mostly be pages on sites which provide promotional services to businesses. Some are obviously that, such as one at www.prnewswire.com, but others are clearly similar in nature if you look closer. For example, there is a page at www.finextra.com, a site which says of itself "Finextra is the leading independent newswire and information source for the worldwide financial technology community. ... Finextra offers a range of advertising, lead generation and promotional opportunities to support marketing campaigns, build brands, attract delegates to events and reach new prospects." Another reference is a page on a website which says of itself "F&I Management & Technology Magazine's mission is to be the leading business media resource for dealer F&I opportunities", which is a roundabout way of saying that it provides advertising. It is, in fact, not clear to me that any of the references is a genuinely independent source, the most promising of them apparently being write-ups of a few press releases telling the world about particular business deals that Obopay has entered into. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt. Completely agree with nominator's analysis of the sources in the article. On a search of Google News, I found one article of significant coverage at Business Week. Other items that look at first glance like significant coverage turned out to be press releases, such as this one published by (and disavowed by) Reuters. Google News Archive turns up a few passing mentions in Reliable Sources like Bloomberg. Bottom line, a single article in Business Week plus some passing mentions and press releases do not amount to significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and this subject does not pass WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt as per MelanieN and JamesBWatson: couldn't put it better myself if I tried. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Delete. Fails WP:CORP, the nominator has analyzed the article better than I ever could at this point, and I agree with his assessment.
 * Delete, As noted by MelanieN the subject has received significant coverage once, and has received multiple passing mentions in non-primary reliable sources, that being said it is my opinion that the article the subject has not yet passed general notability as one significant coverage article is IMHO sufficient to pass GNG. Perhaps it is too soon for this subject to be considered notable, so I am not ready to declare that the article title should be salted, given that the multiple other mentions may increase at some point in the future where they may added up to be significant coverage, I would say it is just too soon for this article to be considered notable at this point in time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This article has been created and recreated SEVEN TIMES. There is clearly somebody really pushing this. I still say salt, and if there is better information in the future, they can request that it be unsalted. --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Presumably "sufficient to pass GNG" should read "insufficient to pass GNG".
 * 2) The fact that the situation may change in the future is not a reason for not salting, as it can always be unsalted if and when new evidence is found. Nevertheless, my choice would be to leave it unsalted for now. If the people who keep re-creating it accept the consensus here then there is no need for salting, and if they don't, and re-create it, then will be the time for salting. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been deleted 6 times already. Your assumption of good faith is commendable, but I don't think we can expect them not to keep recreating this. It needs salting. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The coverage is mostly passing coverage or press releases. I could not find anything beyond the Businessweek item already mentioned above.  As for salting, given that this article has only previously been deleted with low scrutiny methods (PROD and speedies), I think we can leave it unsalted and deal with salting later if it reappears and is still not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2013 (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.