Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omise (Company)


 * 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 speedy keep. Well, not very speedily. WP:SK, no rationale for deletion. This is without prejudice to an actual AfD at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Omise (Company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was recently created by User:Limamurat and immediately draftified by User:Jake Brockman. I have reverted the draftification in order for it to be discussed here at AfD, where I hope it will see wider input. I am not arguing for its deletion.

This article should be at Omise, but the title's salted due to it being twice G11ed in 2017. I don't think the current version is blatantly promotional, and Omise has over the past few years become a major online payment operator in the region. While the references need pruning to remove non-independent PR pieces, some of them appear to be third-party reporting that cover the subject in an in-depth manner. Paul_012 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Wrong venue. Clean up the references and expand the article, since there's no rationale for deletion. This should've been taken directly to WP:RM instead of AfD. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 23:59, 07 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment not sure I follow the logic of the nomination. This appears to be the wrong venue. AfD is not a place to argue improvement of an article or request moves. There are specific venues for that (article talk page, RM). In fact, as the nominator agrees the article needs work, draft would have been the correct venue for that. Fix it, submit as AfC, get it reviewed or as experienced user be bold and RM under new name. The nominator appears to be nominating for deletion to achieve a keep and RM. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: I brought this to AfD because I thought it appeared evident from the repeated CSDs, draftifications and failed AfC submissions that many editors saw the subject as not notable and that it should not have an article. AfD appeared to be the venue most suited for discussions relating to a subject's notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have followed the given advice by cleaning up the references and removed any non-independent PR articles from the reference. The article can be further evaluated if necessary and guidelines will be met upon suggested advice.Limamurat (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for this. I'd only consider one, maybe two sources in the article as editorial. The rest still are PR or closely aligned re-reporting of corp announcements, such as funding rounds, business expansions, nominations of people, etc. Very run-of-the-mill and not sufficient for WP:NCORP.
 * On a more general note, articles about Omise, Omise (Company) and OmiseGO have a bit of a colourful history with a variety of editors - some of whom made few other edits, so reviewers will be aware and exercise caution. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 19:50, 9 May 2019 (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.