Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POLi Payments


 * 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 keep. Cavarrone 10:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

POLi Payments

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another fintech with no encyclopedia notability. Popular media did not cover this as being notable. this is just Press nothing about depth of coverage. Highly misleading in nature. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Online payment system POLi Payments has found itself in hot water after allegations that it has been duplicating the sites of Australian and New Zealand banks, and prompting customers to enter their banking details. ASB Bank New Zealand raised the alarm, stating that through its security and fraud-monitoring measures, it 'identified the POLi payment service is 'spoofing/mirroring' the ASB and Bank Direct secure internet banking sites so that they look identical to our genuine sites, and capture customer information.' One of POLi Payments' offerings is to partner with businesses, so that their customers can use POLi to make payments from their bank accounts, eliminating or reducing merchant fees. When checking out with a POLi-enabled business, customers are prompted to log in to their bank account, where POLi handles making the transaction on the user's behalf. Participating businesses include Jetstar, Virgin Australia, Air New Zealand, and Dodo."  The article notes: "Online shoppers in the UK will be able to pay direct from their online bank account rather than via a credit or debit card, thanks to a new service. The POLi online bank payment platform aims to increase payment choice while reducing card-not-present fraud, a category of fraud covering ecommerce transactions which is on the rise. ... The technology behind POLi was developed by Australian firm Centricom Pty. According to merchants in Australia using POLi, the service now accounts for an average of 23 per cent of their total online payment transactions. Centricom teamed up with UK-based online payment firm Neteller last August to launch a joint venture to roll out POLi in Europe, starting with its launch in the UK last week. The service, distributed through Neteller’s payment processing arm Netbanx, supports transfers from all major UK high street banks.  ...  POLi pricing is based on volume of transactions, rather than a percentage of sales charged to merchants by credit card firms. As a result, costs to merchants and consumers alike ought to be lower. Merchants need only store transaction ID numbers and dispatch details, without a requirement to store information on a customer's online bank account. ... POLI has previously been rolled out in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa."  The article notes: Australian banks are looking into the security of Melbourne online payments intermediary POLi after a New Zealand bank warned customers against the service due to "serious security and fraud risks". CommBank's trans-Tasman subsidiary ASB this week issued an advisory warning that POLi was spoofing or mirroring its internet banking sites and capturing customer information.  POLi stated in response (pdf) that it did not capture or store user information. Its terms and conditions indicated that it did not store usernames and passwords but "the POLi Service may store your financial institution account number".  POLi targets users who do not have credit cards, offering what it describes as "a pass through service whereby the bank sites are accessed via our secure servers".  The service claims to be used by government organisations such as the New Zealand transport authority, most Australian and New Zealand banks, and companies like Jetstar, Virgin Australia, Skype, Travelex and Mantra Group.   The article notes: "POLi Payments is an Australia-based online payments system provider which has used Bugcrowd's bug bounty service. The company's systems have been penetration-tested by VeriSign and its code has been reviewed by two other organizations, but Jeffery McAlister, POLi Payments' CEO, points out that the penetration test was carried out to get a report at the end of it. 'Scopes were set, budgets were set, and our technical team was confident that we would get a good report. But unless we came under real attack, we couldn't be sure how secure we really were,' he says. POLi Payments decided on a limited period bug bounty program with a fixed budget of AU$5,000 (US$4,650), about half the price of its penetration test. There were 335 people who participated in the program, at least some of whom McAlister believes were former underworld hackers."  The article notes: "Neteller, a payment processor for gambling websites, has bought a minority stake in Centricom of Australia for ADollars 5m (Pounds 2.1m) cash to expand its online services in the Asia Pacific region. ... Neteller introduced the online payments system to its Australian customers after a partnership was struck with Centricom in January. The system allows customers to make payments online without disclosing bank or credit card details to the merchant. ...  Jagen, an international investment group, remains Centricom's majority shareholder."  The article notes: "One system is already running on a small scale in Australia. Called 'POLi', or Pay Online, it is a joint venture between the Melbourne company Centricom and the global technology giant Unisys. Only three online retailers have signed up so far, but Centricom's chief executive, Simon Warner, said several large retailers and airlines are poised to make it a payment option on their websites. The system is unlikely to be popular with the big banks, since it could eat into their revenues from credit card transactions."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow POLi Payments to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Delete as the information and sources listed literally only focus with advertising the company and services, none of it actually amounts to substance and nor should it be given the sheer number of different accounts involved here and how they only add what the company say about itself; this is all enough to delete and there's no questions about it. SwisterTwister   talk  20:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree that POLi Payments is promotional. It contains a detailed "Concerns" section with information like: "Although POLi Payments stresses that security is a high priority for POLi,[9] concerns remain regarding exposing the user's banking credentials to POLi, and liability for fraudulent transactions [10] ASB Bank, one of New Zealand's largest banks, has responded to POLi with a release stating that POLi is 'spoofing/mirroring' their on-line banking pages and capturing customer information, and 'due to the serious security and fraud risks' recommending that their customers not use it.[11][12] The release also claims that ASB has asked POLi to remove support for ASB customers from their service. POLi responded to the ASB advisory with an announcement, refuting the claims,[13] and apparently reverting the version of the payment system.[11] ANZ New Zealand,[14] Bank of New Zealand,[15] Kiwibank,[16] Commonwealth Bank,[17] Westpac[18] and Police Bank[19] are also warning customers against using POLi. ANZ further advised that use of POLi invalidated the bank's online guarantee, potentially making the customer liable for any losses if their online banking account were to be compromised. POLi's terms and conditions note 'We are not making any representation that we or POLi™ have the approval or, an affiliation with, or any licence from or agreement with your financial institution to operate or make POLi™ available for use by you.'[20]" Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Literally every single one of those contains clear and blatant company PR, take one for example:
 * "One of POLi Payments' offerings is to partner with businesses, so that their customers can use POLi to make payments from their bank accounts, eliminating or reducing merchant fees. When checking out with a POLi-enabled business, customers are prompted to log in to their bank account, where POLi handles making the transaction on the user's behalf"
 * Take the other examples:
 * "The POLi online bank payment platform aims to"...."Centricom teamed up"...."security is a high priority for POLi"...."One of POLi's offferings"...."POLi pricing..."....[Company] has partnered with [company]"...."POLi stated"...."The company's systems have been penetration-tested by VeriSign and its code has been reviewed by two other organizations, but Jeffery McAlister, POLi Payments' CEO, points out that the penetration test was carried out to get a report at the end of it"
 * No serious publication would actually advertise literal advertised services and company and everything else accompanied and in other links here publish the same thing, if that's all the publication cared to publish, it shows there was no actual journalism, and it's simply republishing PR as if it were PRNewswire or BusinessWire. Note how literally blatant this last quote is about the banks, it not only contains "TM" symbols but it speaks from the company's literal POV, something that only they are saying and publishing. We cannot take such blatancy literal for "significant" or "coverage" and nor should we, because none of it is actual independent significant coverage. Once we actually start accepting republished advertising as coverage, we are severely damned. SwisterTwister   talk  06:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I cannot agree that articles like those from ZDNet and nextmedia that discuss allegations of how POLi Payments poses "serious security and fraud risks" are PR. Cunard (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And I cannot agree that "Everything is promotional and nothing else" and "Literally every single one of those (concerns links?) contains clear and blatant company PR", given the significant list of non-promotional bank and non-promotional (mostly negative) reputable third source web sites, and the (mostly negative) security reports (refs 6, 7, 8 and 11 through 19, 21 and 22).
 * Please list the actual ref URL/s or ref number/s that are promotional or blatant PR so they can be cross-checked. (Links to POLi's website will of course be self-promotional.)
 * peterl (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just re-read it, and maybe you are referring to the links in the first 'Keep' section? In Which case, my responses would be:
 * 1. The Register. Agree, is promotional. But it is coverage in The Register.
 * 2. The Register. Disagree, is very negative: ""serious security and fraud risks".
 * 3. ITnews. Disagree, not promotional, negative. "Banks concerned over POLi security"
 * 4. CIO magazine. Disagree, not promotional, informational + negative. 38 security issues.
 * 5. Newsbank/Financial times. Disagree, not promotional. Informational on company itself.
 * 6. SMH. Disagree, not promotional. Informational, but also says "unlikely to be popular with the big banks".
 * There are also the links on the current page to The Guardian, The Register, BRW and numerous bank websites.
 * peterl (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * What you presenting here with long list of references are News just News covered by News. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper. We are discussing the Company here, and why this company should be kept or deleted ?Light2021 (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – The company was previously named Centricom. North America1000 06:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

<ul><li>Strong Keep. The primary focus and refs of this article are on its Concerns. There is significant, reliable, well-referenced, reputable sources for all of these. The bulk of this page, and its references, are on the concerns and problems, so I can't see it as a PR win.(refs 6, 7, 8 and 11 through 19, 21 and 22). The overwhelming coverage in this article is negative. Being owned by Australia Post, and promoted by some significant Australian (and NZ) companies also makes it notable. Perhaps some of the history of previous versions can be trimmed, although that information also demonstrates the history of security issues.

In the light of this, I don't understand the assertion "Everything is promotional and nothing else."

Also of note may be the attempted edits by possible COI editors to reduce the 'severity' of the coverage.

On a side note, I've removed one sentence which may have been viewed as promoting how it works. peterl (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I've just seen that many of the links to negative pages, particularly from the banks, have rotted, so I'm updating them. (Have just done the BNZ one, but will get to more of them.) They clearly display the widespread concern from the banks themselves, which is clearly value in the notability stakes. (For those not from Australia or NZ, we have many fewer major banks than countries, so the weight that should be afforded those that do publish pages should be higher.)


 * peterl (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)</li></ul>


 * First the way Keep discussion is going on by presenting Articles here. A very Lengthy one instead just mention the link. Contributors might get confused with the notability discussions as it is so so long comment.

If you go to real article coverage Either they are Press like Bounty Program or how this company is being compared with others or similar to that extend. This kind of coverage can only be made possible by PR department of a company. And that is how coverage mislead with notability. If this company has been covered by media by "Negative" view, how does that even make it neutral. Lots of scandal happens in the world. News Covered them already. Why the Encyclopedia need them here.

If it is news about company and it says how remarkable it is to bring great change or by its notability then it can have the page as Wikipedia. Else We are writing news coverage in the form of Company article in Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That a lot of the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is negative does not negate the fact that is is ""significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". ZDNet:, nextmedia:, ASB:, ANZ:, BNZ:, Kiwibank:, ZDNet/Commbank:, Policebank:
 * peterl (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really know whether you even understand the meaning of Notability and Coverage? You are wasting lots of time citing unnecessary sources with no significance. Twitter status, Banks Press Release Website Pages? is this notable? you are making so many comments to prove one great hoax of promotions with citing infinite unrelated non-notable sources to build confusion, so someone can come here and make it close not by reading them but by the waste of length written here. As no one has time to read so much. The No Consensus will be chosen in the end and it will be closed as Keep. This is the strategy you want to follow here. Like Above comments made by contributors also, Tired of responding to your comments with no sign of substance but mere waste of time. Light2021 (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree.
 * peterl (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK!
 * Light2021 (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Cunard's well-presented research. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note how I specifically and explicitly noted every single advertising puff from those articles complete with quotes, therefore the links only actually emphasized how there's nothing else beyond actual advertising, therefore we have nothing for a significantly improvable article, let alone actual substance. SwisterTwister   talk  22:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree peterl (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Peterl presented some strong counterpoints to many of those arguments, specifically that many of those articles were at least partly critical. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Thanks to 's research and analysis. There is in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, I want to address the sentence from the nominator - "This kind of coverage can only be made possible by PR department of a company." Newspapers don't wake up in the morning and start knocking on doors of companies looking to write about them. The large majority of stories you read are PR driven. PR companies are paid to put stories in front of the media. HOWEVER, it is still up to the media to decide to cover them. If a reliable source decides to fact check a press release and write a story about it, it then meets the definition of coming from a reliable source in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, such as some of those listed above and as per sources available in searches. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. The statement in the nomination of "everything is promotional and nothing else" is instantly refuted by reading the "Concerns" section of the article. North America1000 12:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, the sources are decent but the tone of the article is jsut promotional in tone. Pyrusca (talk)
 * I note that more than half of the article and more than half of the references are about security concerns. The lead section is descriptive (what is does), but also introduces the concerns, including the reported connection to enabling financing of illegal gambling. Are there any sentences that particularly stand out regarding the promotional tone? peterl (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer - Simply a note that in the near week now of this AfD, the Keep votes have not actually substantiated themselves with other sources found or what else could actually improve this, including after I specifically listed the quotes from the earlier sources and showed the blatant "The company said today", "The company's goals and plans are", "The company's services include for its clients", etc. Therefore this article is still an advertisement, regardless of the agreement of comments. SwisterTwister   talk  04:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A number of new refs have been found and added. The article has been edited and improved over the week (see the history). The breadth of references show clear notability and significance. I also find it difficult to see how an article that has such significant negatives and concerns could be viewed as an advertisement. The 'Delete' votes have clearly not supported their assertion that "Everything is promotional and nothing else" in the light of the actual refs on the page. Three of the four major Australian banks (and other smaller banks) are warning customers not to use it, and that is promotional? peterl (talk) 05:19, 31 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.