Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PayActiv


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

PayActiv

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional and borderline non-notable The combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism is a reason for deletion

With respect to notability, most of the references are either articles about the general problem, or essentially press releases, or mere notices. . The NYT article mention this firm among others, as does CNN & the WSJ--they do not amount to significant coverage. The Forbes article is by a "contributor"--a press release they taken o responsibility for. The awards are minor, and not of general significance. As for promotionalism :  most of the article is  advocacy about the need for an organization such as this one, all throughout the article, & particularly  in section 2. The article gives promotional features of the company's plan, addressed only to prospective users, ( " all employees are eligible from day one")  It's written  in a manner appropriate to a web page, ("financial wellness" ; "responsible and sustainable man". The company name is used over 20 times in the short article..

Normally on seeing such an article I'd move it into draft space. But it already was in draft space, and the author moved it into main space themself, thus defeating the  the purpose of  having the article reviewed. I should note that the ed. is not usually a promotional editor, but works competently on reasonable subjects in the field of entertainment; I cannot account for this exception.  DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Total advert and not notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciate the review and we're open to discussing options to help reduce or remove the promotional language. If agreeable, we will make suggested edits in the TALK page for review? Thank you LucyArn (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nominator in addition to an undeclared paid editor creating the article in the first place. VViking Talk Edits 14:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: has now provided the proper disclosure of paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as promotion "solution is offered as a financial wellness service ", "provides a holistic financial wellness solution to its users", "all from their mobile phone", "advocated for earned wage access", "to better deliver services to users", "a voluntary financial wellness benefit"?! This is nuts. As for the sources, The New York times dedicates three sentences to PayActiv, the LA Times about 15% of their article. Its not much better for the other ones. None of this is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Vexations (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article consists largely of marketing buzzspeak, probably introduced by the paid editor. If the buzzspeak is deleted, not much is left, probably not enough to establish corporate notability.  My advice to the paid editor is my usual advice to paid editors, which is that if all of the promotional content that they are paid to put in an article is really removed, there will be little remaining value to the article, so that it is a better expense of corporate money to improve their own web site, which is not edited by neutral volunteers.  It isn't the job of neutral volunteers to try to help paid editors write something neutral.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find much to indicate the company is notable. Dorama285 (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2020 (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.