Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Versapay


 * 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. X clamation point  05:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Versapay

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a NN company. The references are all self-promoting press releases put out on for-pay wire services -- does not meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Should have been A7'ed or G11'd from the start. All of those "references" are press releases from the company, and two of them are duplicated (the same release on two different websites). And the creator is an SPA. § FreeRangeFrog 22:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The company is in the same space as other companies appearing on Wikipedia such as Global Payments. The references are all company issued and are indeed posted to pay-for newswires but the company is also regulated so the press releases must be confirmed and approved prior to announcement. Pls excuse the ignorance but not sure what "NN company" means. External references will be added but we just started building the page. User is new but not SPA as will be contributing to the ecomm and merchant accounts section as there are few if any Canadian sources of information on the industry.Bogueart (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to editor that duplicate references were posted to show multiple sources as opposed to single source.Bogueart (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "SPA" is single-purpose account -- WP:SPA offers more information. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you PT Bogueart (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Duplicating a reference doesn't mean there are multiple sources. Articles that are duplicated across multiple news sites are generally considered to have one common source and count as one reference. Showing them as two when they're basically the same makes the company seem more important than it really is. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A duplicated reference tells me that either the author is being careless (not a big deal), or that they're banking on people not checking them out. In this particular case, and being a cynic when it comes to companies trying to get into the Google index via Wikipedia, I'd say the latter. In any case, they're all press releases, which by definition fail WP:RS. § FreeRangeFrog 18:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure why there is so much negativity on here trying to get legitimate information about a real company on here. The company in question is already on the Google index...that wasn't even the point of doing this...it was to bring information on the Canadian payment industry which is lacking on Wikipedia. Very disturbed as to all this slander, thought Wikipedia was not like this. In good faith, I will update the info to appease the cynics as to not appear like "advertising"Bogueart (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get too caught up in the minutiae of this discussion, and please don't use scary legal terms. I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that there are thousands of unremarkable companies out there actively trying to get an article included in Wikipedia. Along with thousands of unknown garage bands. The issue at hand here is that the inclusion guidelines are very specific as to why a corporation might be documented with an article on Wikipedia. Something that reads like an advertisement, and even a conflict of interest are never grounds for deletion. Not establishing why a company is notable under those guidelines, however, usually is. And so far the only backing arguments to those claims are press releases from the company itself, which as you can imagine are not considered reliable sources. That's the issue here. I don't know that Wikipedia has changed much in that regard. § FreeRangeFrog 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fair, I have read through the terms and it was perhaps ignorance to reference press releases as opposed to independent discussion or sources. I will edit and see if that works. Bogueart (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an unfair comment. Every article on here that speaks to a product or company could be labeled as "advertising"Bogueart (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Page and references have been updated to be within guidelines. Please advise, if possible, any additional steps that can be taken to fit the perfect mold.Bogueart (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation updated as requested.Bogueart (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2009 (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.