Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payfirma


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Payfirma

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An IP claiming to represent the company wishes this article deleted ("Take Payfirma off Wikipedia entirely."). I agree with this proposal on the basis that the company is at best marginally notable and most of the sources used have little more reliability than a press release or do not support the article's content. Kilopi (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

DISAGREE I don't know what kind of homework you did on if that user indeed came from the company but if you want to delete this page, you should be consistent and delete the other 2.8M company pages that are not notable or have no references outside press releases. Leave it to a Wiki super admin to think he/she defines what is notable and what isn't. Typical fascist control freaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.98.115 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 January 2013‎
 * Not much homework, I took the rant on his talk page ("letting us edit our own page") as an admission. The IP geolocates to Vancouver (as does yours), though that doesn't mean much. The style of writing is intended to promote rather than inform (eg. I cannot see how any honest person could defend the use of footnote 2) which usually means WP:COI, but not necessarily in-house.
 * As for the other 2.8M, I'd love to see them redone based on credible secondary sources, preferably by someone without a business relationship with the company. If that isn't possible, I'd like to have them deleted too. Would you like to help? Kilopi (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 04:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator, who is more patient than I. The page is not offensively promotional in tone, but the subject does not seem notable.  --Lockley (talk) 06:22, 6 February 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.