Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PayU (2nd nomination)


 * 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. is admonished to tone their comments down in future. We can do without the personal attacks. Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

PayU
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In essence, an advertisement. Plus, the company clearly doesn't pass the notability guidelines given the available coverage. Bradgd (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, before marking pages for deletion Bradgd, do you ever check the previous discussions just a couple of week back? Did you spent even 1 minute to check the references in every part of the world, there are atleast 50,000 newspaper references from every top newspaper. Really please don't waste time by nominating a page that is way ahead of notability, indepth coverage. 157.37.188.0 (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, the nominator is a new account holder and seems to have, not enough experience on the companies. Definitely agreed with the previous nomination, it is a definite keep. 202.238.100.180 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Very odd. What account were you using with the previous nomination?  HighKing++ 18:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * — 202.238.100.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. North America1000 07:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The previous nominator, withdrew the nomination because one of the Keep arguments put forward was that PayU is a large company and DGG believes this should be a part of the criteria for establishing notability. Unfortunately though, it isn't part of the criteria (and maybe it should at least be part of the consideration - I'd support it as a criteria depending on how to classify a company as "large"). For now though, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. References are mostly routine, based on announcements or mentions-in-passing and all fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. In the previous AfD,  listed a handful of possibilities. This from Business Review is a press release. For example, here's another remarkably similar article with the same facts and details. This from siasat.com has no attributed journalist and would therefore fail as a [WP:RS|reliable source] and it is not clear that the information provided came from a source unaffiliated with the company. It is also the exact same article as this one, this one, and this, and this, and so on. This from Business Standard also has no attributed journalist and would therefore fail WP:RS and would fail WP:ORGIND for the same reasons. It states at the bottom This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed. It is also based on a company announcement - it is a basic PR. The paywalled WSJ article appears to be a funding announcement but I do not have access so I cannot comment further. The ad hominen attack by the anon IP address aside, this BusinessTech reference they provided (and I'm assuming they put forward the best they could find) in the previous AfD focussed on the CEO of PayU SA fails as it is not intellectually independent and is not significant coverage. This reference is clearly based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND and this moneycontrol reference has no attributed journalist and is also based entirely on a company announcement (repeated, for example, in the Times of India).  HighKing++ 18:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. he alternative would be to merge this as a section into the parent company, Naspers. In addition to size, an additional consideration for businesses that are part of a corporate structure is the degree to which we want to combine the material into a comprehensive article. There are 15 brands listed the  Naspers article; all of them have separate articles.  Eight are media companies, which we generally give somewhat preferential treatment to; the other 7, including this one,  are internet social media or marketing companies, which we usually are more stringent about.   Coverage should have some criterion besides the accidentals of what there happens to be articles about, because essentially all articles about any of these will be to some extent PR, and which ones we choose to count as RSs is more or less arbitrary.  That';s the key problem with using NCORP for companies--there is no really clear distinction. We've seen that even the most reliable media seem to have articles that seem  inspired by PR with contents that overlap what is clearly PR in the less reliable media.  The distinctions we set up 12 years ago and modernized this year simply do not hold up to reality in these fields. I'm not going to present an argument for why the particular sourceshere are or are not sufficiently usable for notability, because for most of them I could equally well argue in both directions.   DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * DGG, Last time you have withdrawn the nomination with Speedy Keep and this time you are asking for Keep or Merge, did you went with the flow last time and also this time again. It seems that you are very confused, things are simple, either the company is notable or either it is not. It is a big surprise that ADMIN are not sure of policy and are admin from a long time, trolling companies without the indepth knowledge. Sir, wake up, stop stalking companies, get a brush around and do it really little good, then start participating in AFD. I'm going to withdraw this. I am pleased to see more people arguing on the basis that the company is large or prominent enough to be important. I have been saying for the last 10 years that this would be a more realistic standard than the details of sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC). Can you please quit your role as Wikipedia ADMIN until you are not 100% sure and not confident, until you dont go with the flow. As an admin, do it and do it real good. After sometime physical libraries won't exist and I hope people will update them with knowledge and make WP a place what it is supposed to be. Go update the librarianship pages and that is what you know. 202.238.67.135 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * DGG, Check this discussion, you dont even know what is notable and what is not. Your edit pattern seems to be very weired, do you really deep dive for sources or you are librarian so don't know how to search through browsers on the search engines. Oh, Google is one search engine and it helps in finding news sources. When will you surrender admin privledges here that you truly don't deserve? 202.238.67.135 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Question, With your User:DGG, so to ban my competitor website and their links on WP, I will insert their links like anything so that you will ban them. What will your approach to it? 202.238.67.135 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're saying that it's your website? or your company? or that you work for it? See WP:COI. If so, I think that needs to be taken into account in evaluating what you've been saying.
 * To explain a little further, at the previous afd I withdrew the nomination because I thought it was clear it was not going to get deleted and it seemed reasonable that there was notability . Now that the question has been raised again, I look at it fresh. I never claimed to be infallible, and if I make a mistake, or just think more carefully about a problem, and revise my opinion, I say so. In this case, I thought about the whole group of companies and am considering how to best handle them. As I said above, we can either merge them all into the parent company, or keep the major subdivisions as separate articles (the 2nd order subsidiaries of this one are already not separate articles, but discussed in it).
 * I do not consider notability only a matter of sources, and I've been saying so for many years now. I've learned to make arguments on the basis of sourcing, because it does matter, and many people think its the only thing that matters. people think it matters, but I actually think, and have increasingly said, that the differences between RS and nonRS sources in this area are a matter of interpretation, and can be argued either way.  The new NCORP adjusts the balance a little, in an appropriate way, but it doesn't change the basis. I continue to think, as I've been saying for years, that in most cases what people actually do in afd discussions--usually unconsciously-- is to decide on some overall basis whether the subject is notable, and then interpret the sources accordingly.
 * As an admin, I make admin decisions according to what I believe to be the current consensus, whatever I may think personally. That's what I think every admin is obliged to do. In discussing what ought to be done, I give my own personal opinion, which on the basis of my afd record is most often, but not always, supported by the consensus of other editors. The consensus is the result. Unlike a few editors here, I actually believe in that principle.  DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Found some references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There are analyst report covering Payment Gateways. For example this Technavio Research report (link provides details of what is in the report) covers Payu (and others) in detail. Likewise, this research report from QYResearch. There are many others as well.  HighKing++ 11:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There are several references that makes this company notable. I will be surprised to see that PayU is not notable. 202.238.67.135 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * — 202.238.67.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. North America1000 07:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The company evidently lacks an in-depth coverage in the news media. Having gone through a lot of them, they are generally either not trustworthy or talking about routine events like funding, opening new offices etc. I’m surprised by those who voted or changed their mind to a keep. I’d argue them to take a second look. 41.42.141.146 (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * — 41.42.141.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. North America1000 07:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Agreed with Highking, PayU has plenty of coverage.157.37.90.77 (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Of course, a company that "provides payment technology to online merchants" is going to receive a lot of coverage in business-related news, some of which is routine, but overall, enough significant coverage exists to qualify an article. Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America1000 07:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per my original sources and the justifications listed both in the previous AfD and this one (which overlap primarily). Normally I'd be polite enough to relist them all, but given the speed here I would just note that I believe NCORP to be satisfied, albeit only just (though I imagine other sources do exist). I also feel that is both being rude and not entirely comprehensible in the process. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2018 (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.