Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paysafecard (2nd nominaton)


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. Deleted once few years ago, recreated, prodded, declined - now here again. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete An article on a non-notable company, repeatedly created by single-purpose accounts. In the latest version of the article, there has been a concerted attempt to make it look as though there is evidence of notability by bombarding the article with numerous references, but those references don't stand up to examination. Several of them are 404-deadlinks, at least one doesn't even mention Paysafecard, many others are on Paysafecard's own web site, others are non-independent, unreliable, etc. One of the references even declares itself to be original research, relying on comparison of two different sources, together with "a personal inquiry at several local stores"! Not one of the references is the sort of thing that is required by Wikipedia guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The article appears to be pure spam. Examination of the references reveals several problems, per JamesBWatson. Becky Sayles (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2014 (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.