Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustly


 * 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  19:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Trustly

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Uncertain notability, in its current state. Oscarthecat (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep Some third party sources exist--Conan The Barbarian (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    13:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    13:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    13:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    13:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - per user conan the barbarians third party sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could you please restore the article. This AFD still haven't closed and there seems to be no clear consensus to delete the article at the moment. Please revert your deletion so that we can continue the discussion. Cheers!  Jim  Car  ter  17:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am restoring the article. This was obviously a mistake of some kind. The discussion is only hours old, and this AfD discussion was not actually closed. --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I also noticed this immediate deletion now and,, are you aware of Articles for deletion/Metaskapes as well? SwisterTwister   talk  20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I was going to restore it too, but then I realized it had been tagged for speedy - A7 and G11. The system tagged it as "per AfD" but it was actually a speedy deletion. I have closed that discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought and saw and was also thinking of closing it but because I wasn't sure of its history. SwisterTwister   talk  20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure myself what happened here. I can't see my deletion in the history, although it's in my logs. It looks as if I simply forgot to put a rationale, since the AFD comment would have been pre-entered by the AFD nomination. Incidentally, it's not necessarily the case that AFDs have to run their course, since a discussion (usually) about notability sometimes misses, eg, copyright violation or obvious COI spamming. Apologies anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Potential for speedy, nothing wrong in Jimfbleak's actions. Its creator, User:Trustly Group AB, was blocked for having a promotional username and creating this CoI article – if someone else thinks the company is notable, then they should create the article. Absolutely nothing worth keeping as is. Jared Preston (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's no obvious improvement here. SwisterTwister   talk  20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete "Uncertain notability, in its current state" per nom is an understatement: it's a one-line, unreferenced article! Nothing to be found in a general web search but press releases and routine funding announcements (, please tell us exactly what search results are relevant if such exist). HighBeam turns up in-passing mentions in an identical story put up by two newspapers under titles "United Kingdom : Opening Up the Online Payments Market, So as to Reduce Fees and Fraud Risks" and "Opening Up the Online Payments Market, So as to Reduce Fees and Fraud Risks". Non-notable in the extreme. – Brianhe (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Given the substantial improvements has made to the article since anyone !voted, I thought I would ping  to see whether they would like to also add to the article's expansion and/or sourcing (in the case of those previously in favor of Keep) or revise their opinion based on the new version of the article (in the case of those previously in favor of Delete). — GrammarFascist   contribs talk 11:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the sources added were two routine directory listings (Bloomberg, Crunchbase) and a press release, I see no reason to do so. Brianhe (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - searches turned up nothing, and current sources don't come close to it passing either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.   <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Trustly to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * I have added these sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the new sources added by . I may not be able to read all of those sources, but the Wikipedia articles about the publications allow for evaluation of their reliability as sources, and they seem to meet WP:RS. Nice work, Cunard! — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 18:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Enough non-PR and non-earning report sources for notability. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 15:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - run of the mill WP:ARTSPAM masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. The tone of the article reflects its intended role as an advertisement. Although I would not inherently object if an independent, non-SPA were to recreate it with a stronger array of reliable references. Citobun (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Although I would not inherently object if an independent, non-SPA were to recreate it with a stronger array of reliable references", Editing policy, Notability, and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. As a non-COI editor, I've reviewed the article and find the article written neutrally. If you disagree, please point out the specific parts that you find promotional so I can fix them. The articles from ABC, Ny Teknik, and Svenska Dagbladet are very strong sources that provide substantial coverage about the subject. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2015 (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.