Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powa Technologies


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Powa Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article including all the companies which is not even functional or being merged into one another. this is classic example of blatant misuse of wikipedia being used for promoting one self and his own companies. This article has misused all the parameters from using Press coverage, non-notable media mentioned to the editing by none other than paid editor on wikipedia. I am nominating all of his companies on the ground of misuse of wikipedia for promoting personally. Light2021 (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.    <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>

<ol> <li> The book notes: Powa Technologies Case Study In February 2016, British FinTech startup Powa Technologies went into receivership at the hands of Deloitte, signaling the collapse and failure of a once-promising startup. While tech (and even FinTech) startups fail on a regular basis, Powa was unique in that it represented a FinTech unicorn. It had risen to prominence and successfully acquired other FinTech companies while raising approximately $175 million in funds. For additional perspective on the hype surrounding Powa prior to its failure, British PM David Cameron had lauded Powa as a potential lightning rod for the UK's recovering post-recession economy. ... Powa's story serves as a cautionary tale to FinTech startups and includes many valuable warnings of exactly what not to do when trying to raise capital, develop products, and grow your FinTech startup. We attempt to shed light on the collapse and also provide key takeaways to help prevent a repeat in other FinTech companies. Several of the more glaring issues that led to Powa's failure appear to be a complicated and tension-filled management structure, too much funding, too high of a burn rate, and a bad product. However, before we delve into these specific problems, let's begin with a brief historical overview of the rise and fall of Powa. </li> <li> The article notes: "Founded by the flamboyant Wagner in 2007, Powa was developing a product called PowaTag, which would allow consumers to scan an item or advert with their smartphone and see details or buy the product immediately. It was billed as the Shazam of shopping; Powa also built retail websites and made tills and card-reading technology. Wagner said in 2014 that Powa was worth $2.7bn and the company claimed that 1,200 businesses had signed up for PowaTag, although it was later reported that many of these were non-binding letters of intent. But it all came crashing down two months ago, when US-based investment group Wellington Management, which had put up £137m in loans and equity starting in 2013 and was Powa’s biggest investor, called in £42m of loans that were due for repayment in December."</li> <li> The article notes: "But last month Powa Technologies collapsed into administration - and it rapidly became clear that it was more akin to a lame old donkey than a unicorn. Its demise has raised questions about the health of London's much vaunted fintech (financial technology) sector, and about the wisdom of sky-high valuations for unproven businesses. In recent weeks, I've spoken to a number of people connected to the mobile ecommerce company in an attempt to work out what went wrong. What those people have told me is that Powa was an almost textbook case of how not to run a company - no clear strategy, directionless management, overblown claims about the technology and a reckless attitude to money."</li> <li> The article notes: "Powa signed partnerships with many banks, telecom firms and retailers in Europe, Asia and North America, but former employees said the deals had no or little upfront money and that Powa constantly missed product-delivery deadlines because they spread their resources too thin. ... A report released in April by Deloitte, which helped lead the administration, showed that Powa’s main company made £4.8 million ($5.9 million) in revenue in 2015. Its staffing costs were £24.8 million and its real-estate costs were £2.3 million that year."</li> <li> The article notes: "Powa Technologies, one of the smooth-talking Londoner's companies, has developed a mobile payments system similar to Mr Dorsey's Square, the dongle that turns mobile devices into payment card readers. He even used the same stock shot as Square to promote it, which earnt him a 'cease and desist' letter from the US company's lawyers in July. ... Powa's newest product, mPowa, will im-prove current payment systems, he says. Far smaller than the bulky payment terminals currently used in restaurants, for instance, its card chip reader connects via Bluetooth to the merchant's mobile and sends a receipt by text message or email to the cardholder. It levies a 0.25 per cent fee per transaction on top of what the card services provider charges, usually about 2.5 per cent."</li> <li> The article notes: "The mobile payments company Powa Technologies has acquired a Hong-Kong rival in a deal that it says puts a $2.7bn (£1.6bn) valuation on the British startup. ... Major retailers including Argos, JD Sports and Laura Ashley have signed up to use Powa’s technology, which allows shoppers to bypass tasks such as entering card and address details when making purchases. The company’s technology, PowaTag, scans a code placed on a website, shop window or advert that directs consumers to the checkout on their smartphone."</li> <li> The article notes: "Powa Technologies has developed a payment technology, PowaTag, that will allow consumers to buy a product simply by taking a picture on a smartphone. ... In order to ensure a monopoly in the marketplace, Mr Wagner has spent the last year building partnerships with retailers, merchants and brands. According to Forbes Magazine, Harper Collins, Hoover and Lavazza, have already signed up. Mr Wagner refused to name names. “I can tell you but I won’t,” he laughed."</li> <li> The article notes: "When UK-based POWA Technologies managed to raise $76 million in a series A last month it turned a few heads. Why? Because it’s not every day that a British tech firm – or any tech firm raising capital for the first time – attracts such a large sum, and from a single American financier, no less. ... In other words, PowaTag will be eating Amazon’s lunch, as well as that of any number of low-price online retailers. All manufacturers will have to do, it would seem, is lower their prices to match those of their competition. ... Part of Powa’s $76 million will go to building a supporting infrastructure for PowaTag. Additionally, the company will be hiring “hundreds” of sales personnel in the next year and they will not all be focusing on PowaTag. By licensing its already released Powa ecommerce platform to retailers, it hopes to change the in-store buying experience by offering the personalized touches associated with online shopping, i.e. remembering your likes, dislikes and customer profile. Self check-out, Wagner said, is also part of the package. “There’s a demand from the retailers to change the physical experience and you’ve seen elements of that in the Apple AAPL +1.07% store.”"</li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Powa Technologies to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * The article contains negative material about Powa Technologies' collapse: "After the collapse of the business a series of articles by the Financial Times called into question several of the claims that had previously been made. Powa's self-proclaimed 2014 valuation of $2.6 billion was investigated and it was concluded that $106 million (£75 million) was a more accurate figure.[18] The claimed '10-year strategic alliance with ‘limitless’ potential” deal with China UnionPay that Dan Wagner personally described in a quote to the BBC as “Why did China UnionPay decide to partner with a little British technology company? We’ve trumped ApplePay and the rest of the world here.” was found to be unknown to China UnionPay who had their lawyers request that Powa stop making the false claims[19] and the majority of the partners upon which the investment and consequent valuation had been based, were found to be just Letters of Intent at best.[20]" The article contains other negative material: "As of early 2016, the company had run into financial difficulties, missing payments to staff and third parties.[10] Its Hong Kong office had failed to pay its employees wages on time and to its ex-employees within 7 days, with some of the employees having to seek help from the Labor Department." I do not consider the article to be promotional. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Just curious if you have read all those articles yourself or just made a copy-paste job here and taken entire space for this discussion. If you will read all those media coverage, it is merely Press coverage or typical marketing of any company. secondly this article is written by the company itself. Light2021 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see you are back after a block and long hiatus to bludgeon the Wikipedia process yet again (more on that in another forum). I am curious how this company would want this "Press coverage" and how they would have even requested it after the company had already gone belly up. There are more than enough references to meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please Don't get personal. Keep it simple and to the point about your opinions. I have read the article and wikipedia is not for writing failure or news story of a fraud or scam. secondly I studied about the founder, he has been using press and media to use as marketing tool and all of his company including his own biography including the Photograph (which is a real non-sense for any notable person, I am happy he did not put his facebook profile pic). Tell me why this is wikipedia worthy to keep? and how it is an encyclopedic worthy by any means possible. and I will change my deletion stand immediately. Light2021 (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not personal. Its about your editor conduct. I highly doubt you will adhere to your promise, but there is no such thing as "wikipedia worthy to keep" in any guideline I know of. An article is notable if it receives significant coverage in reliable sources. For companies such as this, it must have references meeting WP:ORGCRIT which is certainly does as shown above. To say that these are all PR articles because of the founder's behavior is a fallacy as one isn't associated with the other. Can you tell my how the BBC article I showed you above is PR? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.