Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simpay


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  16:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Simpay

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Merely a Press Release Notable. Nothing to be here as new article for closed consortium. Light2021 (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - For lacking notability and being closed as of June 2005. Meatsgains (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I've stuck through my previous vote changing it from "delete" to "weak delete" as a result of the sources provided below. While the company is covered in additional sources, IMO, there still isn't enough out there to warrant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has one terrible source, for sure. But a quick search finds depth of coverage (a BBC article and an interesting "whatever happened to x?" piece). That's already a start towards passing WP:CORP and no doubt a search for offline sources (given the time period) would uncover more. This is exactly the sort of topic that I want to be able to find on Wikipedia: a failed attempt at an Apple Pay-style system that was 10 years too early. There's clearly potential for an encyclopedic article here and I'd be happy to write it. Meatsgains offers the service being dead since 2005 as a reason for deleting it -- we may as well delete Pontiac and Richard Pryor, too then. :)  A  Train ''talk 14:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as it's all still advertising and the sheer number of IPs in the history emphasize this, the BBC article is simply advertising what there is to say about the company and its services, something the current article noticeably shows. There is such a sensible deletion if it means its benefits are outweighed by the concerns. My own searches are not finding what we would need to significantly improve this, and so, what's offered is not nearly enough for actual convincing, let alone substance. SwisterTwister   talk  20:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:SwisterTwister, how exactly does one advertise for a defunct platform from 11 years ago? Are you hip to some sort of advertising time travel? If I've misunderstood what you've written here (entirely possible) please correct me.  A  Train ''talk 21:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am confused how the BBC article is advertising. I do not see a sponsored notice on it and it is written by a member of its staff writers, not a contributor. Also, "there is such a sensible deletion if it means its benefits are outweighed by the concerns" does not make sense to me. Can you clarify? --CNMall41 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The BBC article alone with this one from The Register show in-depth coverage. There is a Computer Weekly article that is behind a pay wall so I am unable to see but wanted to mention it in case someone has access. There are also two books that talk about the subject - & . --CNMall41 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Some source examples to qualify my !vote include: The Guardian, BBC News, Taipei Times, The Register, The Register, Electronic Commerce, The New Legal Framework for E-Commerce in Europe, Corporate and Social Transformation of Money and Banking, Computer Weekly, Gigaom, IBM. Whether or not a company or consortium is active or defunct is not associated with notability. See WP:DEFUNCTS for more information about this notion. Also, the article does not have a promotional tone. North America1000 09:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT due to no apparent lasting notability or impact; a defunct initiative with passing mentions in the press. For example, one of the article linked above states:
 * By 2005 that [Simpay] had morphed into PayForIt, for UK operators only but with similar aspirations, and a similar lack of success. A decade later, mobile network operators are still being cut out of the payment loop, but not for lack of trying.
 * This tells us that this was not a significant entity, and I don't see coverage that meets the notability requirements for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Simpay passes Notability per the significant coverage provided by . Simpay has received sustained coverage. This article from The Register was published in 2003, this article from The Guardian was published in 2004, this article from the BBC and this article from The Register was published in 2005. Per Notability and WP:DEFUNCT, that Simpay is defunct does not make it non-notable. Cunard (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pining . What are your thoughts about the sources provided after your comment? Cunard (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Delete comments above have cared to better analysis the sources and have cared to mention and quote the concerns in those articles, regardless of publication name, and in this, the fact they are all simply interviewed company quotes and republishing of company finances or other company information, hence it's not notable, convincing or substantial. When we start taking such republished PR as coverage, we're completely damned as an encyclopedia.
 * Also, it is not sustained coverage if it's simply once again publishing company quotes and finances, because only the company would know and therefore advertise it. None of that makes it independent regardless of who published it or when. When there's literally nothing else but this to suggest as sourcing, it suggests the mere bareness. With this, WP:GNG means nothing if it means removing an advertisement in which WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply. For example simply take Simpay planned....Simply chose....The founders started work....was founded with a goal....[so and so] then joined them]....Simpay started operations.... [To begin the article], the company....posted the announcement....The company is different because....The company promises it will....Simpay thinks....Simpay has expressed an interest.... and that's simply a minor portion of this, therefore if that's literally the best there is to add in an article and its sources, it shows the mere bareness. The quotes here alone show the either complete bareness of company-published words or the thin cover of rephrasing.
 * As it is, trivial PR and advertising, regardless of wherever published, is explicitly emboldened in Wikipedia policy to be unacceptable, regardless of anything. When we start becoming a PR business listing for every single company who wants an article, we're damned. As it is, there's been damages enough so we mustn't take things so lightly given the stakes. As it is, the fact of simply repeating the same "news" articles simply shows the emphasized bareness.
 * Also, importantly to note, the international articles all something in common and that's the mere starting of everything of "The company said" or "The company says" every single time", this is an automatic suggestion that the information was merely rehashed from company PR and its advertising, especially considering that's where said PR advertising originates, hence the company is simply republishing its own words into whatever publication it pleases in return of advertising. That alone, together with WP:SPAM and WP:NOT, is enough to delete, regardless of anything else. SwisterTwister   talk  06:13, 13 November 2016 (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.