Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeek


 * 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. Although the discussion is leaning towards "delete", opinion remains divided, in good faith, over whether the sources are of sufficient quality to sustain an article. This also applies if one only counts the views of established editors. It seems that the attempts at canvassing have had no apparent effect.  Sandstein  18:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Zeek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Company is not notable. Fails CorpDepth and GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - note that the article used to be much longer, but it was all unsourced, so I cut it to RSes a few hours ago. This appears to have originally been created as a puffery-filled promotional piece (see also the recently-deleted Daniel Zelkind, which was part of the same cluster). I can see sources in GNews, but they're all funding rounds and ownership (which the article already covers) and promotional churnalism about what the company aspires to do - lots of trivia, but not much WP:CORPDEPTH. There may be articles actually about the company that don't originate with the company and aren't about funding rounds and ownership which I've missed, of course. Be careful not to confuse coverage of Zeek the journal. - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Only sources are trivial coverage of the subject; no substantial reliable coverage appears to exist. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficient coverage in reliable sources to where there is no possible content that would substantiate to justify an article. Notability is not established. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Though the app has an easy-to-use graphic interface, its complexity lies in the logistics of transferring the credit from person to person in exchange for money. Zeek serves as the connection between the two parties, in place of a face-to-face meeting, but the process is still somewhat clumsy. This is due to the fact that the retailers refuse to accept physical or digital copies of store credit, only originals. ... Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear, and the two founders are in talks on the matter with the retail chains, but they emphasize that no matter what, for users, the buyers and sellers, there will be no charge for use of the app or transaction fees of any sort. The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets, such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe, in the future. The US is irrelevant, because store credit is very rarely used there. For the time being it only has a Hebrew website. The first investor in the company was Uri Levine, former president and co-founder of traffic app Waze, who today is chairman and co-founder of financial fees comparison site Feex. He is also an angel investor."  The article notes: "In many cases, consumers find pursuing a refund more trouble than it’s worth, so they take the line of least resistance – settling for a credit, in the hope that they will find something else they want from the same store. But for those who can’t, Zeek has a solution – a platform that lets buyers, sellers, and barterers of store credits to find each other, no matter where they are. According to Zeek CEO Daniel Zelkind, retailers are cleaning up on this system, to the detriment of consumers. As much as NIS 600 million ($175 million) in store credits go unused every year. The Zeek app, available for Android and iOS, allows users to scan a copy of their credit and upload details to Zeek’s cloud. Users name their asking price. Zeek categorizes and tags the credit by store, product, style, gender and age appropriateness, and any other criteria users potential buyers would search for. Buyers pay no commission, and depending on store policies, sellers can often sell different chunks of their credit to different customers, allowing them to maximize their sale coverage. While Zeek is clearly a made-in-Israel app – it could have evolved only in a country where refunds are not a matter of course – the app is useful abroad as well. Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly. “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.”"  The article notes: "Zeek looks to combat this age-old frustration by setting up a digital marketplace where unloved gift cards can be bought and sold with ease. It’s simple really - Agatha’s ungrateful sod of a nephew uploads a picture of his gift card and sets a price, all via his smartphone. The app then lets willing buyers pick up the gift card at the discounted value – Zeek reckons it sees an average 20 per cent skimmed off – and find it in their postbox shortly thereafter. Money goes direct to into the seller’s bank account or PayPal, and the buyer is now free to spend his or her new gift card as he or she pleases."  The article notes: "Zeek is a mobile app and website that allows users to buy gift cards and vouchers from their favorite brands at a discount and sell unwanted gift vouchers for cash, providing a solution to the estimated $100 billion of unused gift cards globally. ... Zeek was founded in 2014 by CEO Daniel Zelkind, VP Marketing Itay Erel and CTO Ziv Isaiah and has 35 employees in Israel and London. The company has raised $12.5 million to date including the latest financing round."  The article notes: "If you thought gift cards didn’t have traction, think again. Israel-based Zeek announced a $9.5 million Series B funding round led by Scale-Up Venture Capital on Wednesday. That financing includes contributions from major players like Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm Ventures. The company’s site and app sells gift cards to major brands, as well as resells unused or unwanted gift cards. Reselling would presumably put a dent in what Zeek‘s press release says is a staggering $100 billion in unused gift cards, up from an estimated $41 billion in unclaimed gift cards between 2005 and 2011. ... Zeek was founded in 2014 by CEO Daniel Zelkind, Itay Erel and Ziv Isaiah. Zeek will direct a chunk of the new round toward expansion in the UK market."  <li> The article notes: "Zeek is on a mission to rescue $100 billion worth of unused gift cards and vouchers for users. Zeek is a web-based and app marketplace platform that allows users to buy gift vouchers for over 350 leading UK brands at discounted rates as well as sell their unwanted gift vouchers quickly and easily. zeek.me"</li> <li> The article notes: "If you’ve ever received a gift voucher for a store you rarely or never shop in, then Zeek could prove useful. The marketplace and mobile app lets you buy and sell unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. Meanwhile, Zeeks take a commission on each transaction. Win-win-win, you might say. Today the Tel Aviv-headquarted company is disclosing that it’s closed a $3 million Series A round from Blumberg Capital, Qualcomm Ventures (the chip maker’s venture arm), and Waze founder and existing Zeek investor Uri Levin. Originally launched in Israel before expanding to the U.K. in December 2014, the startup plans to use the new funding to “expedite” further European expansion."</li> <li> The article notes: "Originally launched out of Tel Aviv in 2014, Zeek has since expanded to the U.K., which is now a key market for the startup and part of the reason for today’s announced fund-raise. The new capital will be used to consolidate its position in the U.K. and for further international expansion. This will include a hiring drive as Zeek plans to increase headcount in order to accelerate that growth. The company’s app and marketplace lets you trade unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast. With that said, in a statement Alex Lazovsky, General Partner of Scale-Up VC, is talking up Zeek’s unicorn potential, although I tellingly failed to get the startup’s current valuation."</li> <li> The article notes: "Fresh off a $9.5 million Series B funding round, Zeek is planning on expanding beyond its Israeli headquarters and moving into Europe. The company already has a presence in the U.K. — it’s been there since December 2014 — and it now looks as though demand and additional capital will be taking this gift card-specific marketplace to new horizons."</li> <li> The article notes: "Zeek, an Israeli app company for unwanted store credit, lets you sell store credit (those receipts you get when you return an item that usually ends up getting washed in the laundry), gift cards and e-vouchers below face value. Zeek recently announced that it has raised $3 million in Series A funding from Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm Inc. through its venture investment group, Qualcomm Ventures and Waze founder Uri Levin. Zeek said it will use this new funding to facilitate its expansion into Europe this year."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zeek to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Most of those look really really like paid product placements. Zerotalk 02:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree that any of the reputable news organizations Globes, The Times of Israel, TrustedReviews, he:Geektime, Haaretz, TechCrunch, Digital Trends, and The Jerusalem Post have accepted "paid product placements" from Zeek. Do you have evidence for this exceptional claim? Cunard (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The language of the coverage has promotional undertones, such as:


 * Zeek said it will use this new funding to facilitate its expansion into Europe this year. (Comes from the company, obviously)
 * Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear, and the two founders are in talks on the matter with the retail chains ... (comes from the company about the state of the "talks")
 * The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets (discussion of company aspirations)
 * Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US (potentially unverifiable claims by the company, as the firm is private and does not release revenue numbers)
 * Zeek looks to combat this age-old frustration by setting up a digital marketplace where unloved gift cards can be bought and sold with ease. (more of company aspirations)
 * Reselling would presumably put a dent in what Zeek‘s press release says is a staggering $100 billion in unused gift cards (directly stating that the numbers come from Zeek's press release)
 * Zeek is on a mission to rescue $100 billion worth of unused gift cards (yet more of company aspirations)
 * Today the Tel Aviv-headquarted company is disclosing that it’s closed a $3 million Series A round (routine funding news)
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS to be uncritically republishing corporate statements put through the filter of newspapers and online sources. Media sources are at the bottom ladder as far as RS are concerns. In this particular case, these are secondary sources, but I would not call them reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is good journalistic practice to seek information from the article's subject. That these journalists from reputable news organizations follow this practice does not render the sources unreliable. Cunard (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the above statement confuses investigative journalism with the practice of redressing press releases and / or taking briefings set up by PR firms. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep- I updated the article adding information which passes as"significant coverage in reliable sources exceeds far beyond just trivial coverage. Moreover, the company has won The UK and Israel business, was selected for Red Herring (magazine) 100 finalists. This is evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH Ymd2004 (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as the Delete votes here are firm with stating what the exact concerns are and why we should delete this (the one Keep vote above me is simply restating what the user said above but not actually giving their own thoughts; I'll note that every single source offered above is PR, in that it only contains what the company says about itself, not the journalism itself, see: "Though the app has an easy-to-use graphic interface, its complexity lies in the logistics of transferring the credit from person to person in exchange for money. Zeek serves as the connection between the two parties, in place of a face-to-face meeting"...."The company is beginning with a pilot in Israel, with hopes of entering additional markets, such as Asia, Latin America, and Europe, in the future"...."In many cases, consumers find pursuing a refund more trouble than it’s worth, so they take the line of least resistance – settling for a credit, in the hope that they will find something else they want from the same store. But for those who can’t, Zeek has a solution – a platform that lets buyers, sellers, and barterers of store credits to find each other, no matter where they are"...."While Zeek is clearly a made-in-Israel app – it could have evolved only in a country where refunds are not a matter of course – the app is useful abroad as well. Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly. “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.”...."If you’ve ever received a gift voucher for a store you rarely or never shop in, then Zeek could prove useful. The marketplace and mobile app lets you buy and sell unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount. Meanwhile, Zeeks take a commission on each transaction. Win-win-win, you might say"...."Originally launched out of Tel Aviv in 2014, Zeek has since expanded to the U.K., which is now a key market for the startup and part of the reason for today’s announced fund-raise. The new capital will be used to consolidate its position in the U.K. and for further international expansion. This will include a hiring drive as Zeek plans to increase headcount in order to accelerate that growth"...."The company’s app and marketplace lets you trade unwanted store credit, including gift vouchers, credit notes, gift cards and e-vouchers. The seller gets to offload credit that is of no use or before it expires, and the buyer gets to purchase credit at a significant discount"....In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast"...."Fresh off a $9.5 million Series B funding round, Zeek is planning on expanding beyond its Israeli headquarters and moving into Europe. The company already has a presence in the U.K. — it’s been there since December 2014 — and it now looks as though demand and additional capital will be taking this gift card-specific marketplace to new horizons"....Zeek, an Israeli app company for unwanted store credit, lets you sell store credit (those receipts you get when you return an item that usually ends up getting washed in the laundry), gift cards and e-vouchers below face value. Zeek recently announced that it has raised $3 million from....". None of that was actual journalism efforts but instead actually the company supplying its own information "coated" as news (none of that came close at all for significance, substance or of course "news"), once we accept that at any and all costs, we're an advertising website. SwisterTwister   talk  19:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON; even the sources listed above state: "Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear..." The second rationale for deletion is WP:PROMO, with content such as:
 * Later that year the company won Appcircus's Connect & Enrich App Challenge award . In 2015 the company was selected among, Red Herring Europe: Top 100 Finalists . In June 2016 Zeek won The UK and Israel business award for most promising start up of the year.


 * In 2015 Zeek secured $3 million funding from Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm.
 * In December 2015, they were featured on Sky and CNBC and launched their #ZEEKFACE campaign, which ran until January 2016. In July 2016 the company manged to secure a $9.5 Million succesful round B funding led by Blumberg Capital and Qualcomm


 * The awards listed are not significant, and Red Herring is pay-per-play. The rest is about investments, and "being featured in the news" which is a hallmark of such promotional articles. The sources offered above are not convincing either, as they hue closely to the company messaging and are PR-like or routine announcements about funding rounds as would be expected of a VC-backed company. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." <ul> <li>"The awards listed are not significant, and Red Herring is pay-per-play"?- The awards the company has won are legit. You can basically argue that every award could potentially be fixed by payment. Are you suggesting that all 100 finalists on Red Herring have paid for their placement?</li> <li>"The rest is about investments"- If theses investments about the company have gained such significant coverage than I would say that it is notable in the eyes of the media. These are not PR articles but actual reporting on the start-up company. </li> <li>"*Later that year the company won Appcircus's Connect & Enrich App Challenge award"- What's wrong with this sentence? It is what the original article reports. The company won the award plain and simple. Is that not notable? Why is this advertisement?</li> <li>the company supplying its own information "coated" as news? Are seriously suggesting that such a broad media coverage is all supplied by the company? I find that to be exaggerated since these are not one or two individual sources but instead a wide range of different media sources from three different languages.</li> <li>"Zeek’s business model is still not entirely clear- That article is from early 2014 when the company just started. This is evidence of neutral media coverage. Media coverage of the Zeek dated back almost three years which confirms my claim that these are a lot more than PR articles.</li> <li>Regarding the awards Reporting about different awards the company won seems neutral news reporting as done the original article. If that is advertisement I'll remove it from the article.</li> <li>"In turn, Zeek takes a commission on each transaction. It’s a model identical to extremely well-funded U.S. startup Raise, which closed a $56 million round of Series B funding early last year, putting Zeek’s bank balance into sharp contrast": The media coverage goes well beyond the ones referenced in the article. For example this article about 10 promising start-ups . Is this article considered as pure PR? Did all 10 company paid for article placement? I still struggle with SwisterTwister   talk  claim that all sources are not reliable as well as the claim that all media sources here are basically Sock Puppets at the hands of the company is far from accurate. Given more time I could improve the article. There are sufficient sources in order to so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymd2004 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC) <li>Please tell me what you consider to be "lightweight promotional junk" and I'll remove it from the article ASAP</li> <li>To answer the claim:"I'd like to see more recent and harder (like from long-established newspapers) sources" The company was included in several different (beyond references in the original article) articles by main stream media sources such as Marketing Week and Forbes. The Marketing Week article might be just a passing mention but it is further proff that the company is well establish. <li>There are enough notable mentions about the company from many different sources that pass as sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zeek to qualify Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There are sources in at least 4 languages about the company, and the claim that all news about the company is due to VC-backed funding is just not realistic</li> </ul>Ymd2004 (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC) <li>"compounding that is the lack of wiki formatting ability"- This should not be the issue here. Please focus on the subject at hand. If you feel you can improve the article formatting than by all means please do so.</li> <li>Marketing week : The article notes: UK consumers are estimated to waste around £1bn in unused voucher credits each year. When Itay Eral realised a voucher he received as a wedding present had expired before he had a chance to use it, he decided to do something about it. The result it Zeek, a mobile marketplace for unwanted gift vouchers and cards, where sellers are charged a fee of 7% of the card’s value and people can buy vouchers at a discounted rate. Eral founded the business in 2013 along with Daniel Zelkind and Ziv Isaiah from a headquarters in Tel Aviv. Zeek raised $3m (£2.07m) in funding in 2015.
 * The article mentions the company business model. How is this a RP article?</li>
 * Comment I am unconvinced by the stuff added to the article, and my delete opinion stands - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to see more recent and harder (like from long-established newspapers) sources that show the company has had some staying power before voting to keep. That doesn't include articles about the seeking of funding. Also, I'd like to note that we're supposed to judge the notability of the subject, not the presentation of the article's content -- any lightweight promotional junk can be removed.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 12:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment<ul>
 * The Forbes link is blatantly to one of their hosted blog pages, not to anything published under their editorial imprimatur. They explicitly disclaim it right there on the page. That you link to a blog page and claim it's an RS severely lowers my opinion of your skill in assessing sources, and leads me to distrust your assertions on source quality - David Gerard (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed with David Gerard, and compounding that is the lack of wiki formatting ability (see above), plus the idea that inclusion in a list is meaningful for our purposes. The WP:TOOSOON argument above is pretty compelling to me, which is why I ask for what I asked for.  I think it's going to have to come from another editor for me even to take a look at it.  If nothing like I've requested is supplied, consider my !vote a Delete (for now).  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 17:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification <ul><li>It is absoulotly true that "The Forbes link is blatantly to one of their hosted blog pages". That is why I did not include it in the original article. Thank you for agreeing that the other two references pass as reliable sources.

Zelkind told The Guardian last year: “The app solves a problem we have all experienced. We are allowing people to earn real money for something that would go unused or ultimately expire.” </li>

The company claims 30% of vouchers worldwide go unused amounting to £65bn being wasted." </li> <li> The article notes: Consumers given unwanted gift cards and vouchers as Christmas presents may want to try a new app which promises to sell them on for close to their original value.

Available for Apple and Android devices, the free Zeek app aims to match people with unwanted gift cards with people who would be shopping in that particular store anyway. Zeek estimates that 47% of Brits are given an unwanted gift card each year – half of which never get redeemed.

The app allows sellers to scan in their unwanted gift card and set the price they want for it. Buyers, some of whom might be in the store to make a purchase, can buy the unwanted credit for a discount of around 3%-10%. Electronic vouchers can be redeemed instantly; others have to bought as a physical card and sent in the post by the seller within seven business days.

Co-founder of Zeek Daniel Zelkind says: “The app solves a problem we’ve all experienced. We’re allowing people to earn real money for something that would go unused or ultimately expire.”

He says 94% of vouchers sell within 24 hours, with Amazon vouchers holding the record time of just five seconds.

Sellers of vouchers will be paid by PayPal or bank transfer. Be warned, however, that you have to wait up to 14 business days for the payment to be made. The Israeli company, which has been trading for more than a year, says the delay is for security reasons. It says the money raised by sales is held in a separate collateral account before a payment is made.

Guardian Money took a look at the site and was slightly underwhelmed – many vouchers were being sold with just a 2% or 3% discount, making it hardly worth the hassle. However, voucher discounts may become much more attractive after Christmas as more of them appear on the market. </li></ul> Ymd2004 (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with any of your assertions of sourcing, based on your putting forward bad sources previously; please don't try to put words into my mouth. Also, please learn to use wiki formatting, instead of messed-up HTML that appears cut-and-pasted from elsewhere - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All of that is advertising and that alone, because the "articles" explicitly and largely state exactly what the company wants to say about itself, not what an encyclopedia says; all of that actually goes to excessive specifics about its services. SwisterTwister   talk  21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * At this point, it is established that the company has sufficient coverage in trusted sources such as The Guardian, CNBC, Globes, TechCrunch, Jewish Business News and The Jerusalem Post. These long-established newspapers are evidence of the notability of the subject. The claim that all of that is pure advertising is just absorbed.- Ymd2004 (talk) 8:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- at this point, the article establishes that it exists solely to promote the business. It should be delete as WP:PROMO. Once Wikipedia starts accepting such promotional articles, it will lose its value as an encyclopedia. WP:ENN also apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * With content such as:
 * Awards: May 20, 2014, third place Tel Aviv Innovation Day Contest at Tel Aviv University.
 * 2015 Red Herring'' Europe: Top 100 Finalists.
 * June 2016UK Israel Business award for most promising start up of the year.


 * ...this article is not in compliance with WP:NOT, which is a policy, not a guideline. The rest of the article is not much better. There are no indications of notability or significance, and the article also attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from the company the founders previously worked at (Waze). Do the readers need to know that the company secured funding "in order to further expend (sic) the company's market presence in the UK market"?
 * There is no encyclopedic value to this article as it stands and sources presented do not amount to encyclopedia notability. Accepting such promotional articles is not in the best interest of the project, IMO, as it would also mean that volunteer editors would waste their time trying to maintain neutrality of this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ymd2004 (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I want to also add that the Keep votes themselves have not either challenged the analysis listed, which includes my own above, or substantiated themselves in any shape or form. Honesty is that not one single source actually came close to becoming both substantial and non-PR. One particular user has come to continue listing that "major news sources" are alone to accept, but it's the contents that are unacceptable, therefore since I have firmly and clearly stated such contents were PR, there is absolutely no compromising with that. SwisterTwister   talk  04:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - At this point at seems the editors above are just repeating their previous statements as they refuse to accept article sources. It seems The Guardian, CNBC, Globes, TechCrunch, Jewish Business News and The Jerusalem Post no longer pass as significant coverage. "contents that are unacceptable, therefore since I have firmly and clearly stated such contents were PR" Which contents exactly are you referring to? Or is it your subjective opinion.
 * BTW the recently deleted content "Most vouchers are sold for around 3%-10% off the card's original value. transactions are paid through a PayPal or via Bank transfer. Sellers may be forced to wait for up to 14 days business days due to security reasons before they can receive payment. Meanwhile, the money made from the transactions is kept in a separate collateral account until the payment can be sent" This is media coverage provided by The Guardian. Why was it deleted in the claim that is was content provided by the company? How is this content promotional? it seems like an attempt to sabotage the article.
 * If anyone is repeating their concerns, it's to emphasize what and why they are. No one is making any other statements than that, so as for the deleted contents, this is because it went to such overspecifics about the company and its services, it's clear it only came from one place: the company itself, since that's the person who would know the company's own services best....therefore republished advertising, aka churnalism. My stated analyses and concerns are reaffirmed because, again, to state the above words, "they firmly and clearly state" the PR and concerns. SwisterTwister   talk  23:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The article meets notability guidelines, and multiple WP:RS supporting it. Appears the article has evolved substantially from it's first draft and I don't see any promotional puffery. The article states facts and is well sourced. There is lots of room on wikipedia -- and this article may be of interest to researchers/readers. Since when does an article about a company supported by sources such as The Guardian, CNBC, Globes, TechCrunch, Jewish Business News and The Jerusalem Post not clearly deserve a place on wikipedia? This is an open and shut KEEP case. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * When an article is not acceptable, is when there's enough to suggest we should otherwise not accept it, and in clear cases, it's because of PR intents and actions, which is the case here, the Delete votes including mine and then my analyses above have shown these exact news sources are in fact simply sugarcoated PR, and are not immune from company-supplied information, therefore the company can and is in fact saying whatever it wants, without having to pay or use another platform, because the news publisher is allowing them to use their in clear exchange for "publishing news". What is always by far important than accepting potentially acceptable articles, are not allowing, at any costs, advertisements, because that's exactly what we have worked to not accept for so long, so by allowing this article and other articles, it would cause a snowball and domino affect to then become excuses of "Well, that advertising article was Keep at AfD because people simply listed sources? I'll list my own sources and republished PR without any worries since no one will likely delete my own advertising". Stating that this may be of interest to viewers in fact not the case, because listing such blatant company information and PR sources, are only what their clients and investors want to see, because no one else aside from these intentions, would care to learn about the company's services, plans or interviewed thoughts by the businesspeople, that's why PR exists, for companies themselves to state what they want to say to their clients and investors, not people completely uninvolved. When we become a PR webhost, we're damned as an ad-free and PR-free encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  23:41, 30 September 2016 (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,  Sandstein   18:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

<div style="margin: auto 2em; border: 1px dashed #AAAAAA; padding: 4px; background-color: white; padding-left: 1em;"> References
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although perhaps on a slightly weaker level. Some sources in the article and listed above provide coverage that is more on the routine side, while still providing some non-routine style coverage. However, other sources provide more comprehensive and thorough coverage, such as the examples provided below, which are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Also, the article has been heavily copy edited after being nominated for deletion (see the page's Revision history), and does not have a promotional tone at this time. North America1000 01:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment and analysis - The sources above are entirely still PR, because for one example the first article listed, is not only containing company-supplied information, the beginning itself states "the benefits that Zeek gives you!" No one says that unless they have financial gains and interests in the company itself, this article actually never actually focuses with the company as largely as it may first seem, because the large amounts of first paragraphs are about other things such as the political events happening, and the company is finally started to be mentioned in the fifth paragraph and even then, that's simply about ""Zeek aims to replace the hassle by transferring credits to someone who wants them, eliminating the inevitable squabbling over refunds", company puffery and that alone, until the focus goes to politics again, and then after a few other paragraphs, it starts talking about Zeek again but that's only because of the CEO and how it's stated how the company can be used, and the "benefits it causes!"....until it gets to puffery again "Zeek has tens of thousands of users in Israel, as well as in Europe and the US, where it is used to buy and sell gift certificates. The ability to break certificates into smaller chunks is a useful one for users abroad, according to Zeek. Plus, the fact that it’s all cloud-based makes Zeek convenient and user-friendly", the information following this then goes to state “When you sell the gift vouchers or store credits, all you have to do is send it to us,” the company says. “Once it is received and approved, you will be contacted and we will forward you the money in the most convenient way: either check, PayPal or directly to your bank account. If you purchase a store credit or voucher, this item will be sent to you by mail.” The last sentence then goes to actually state information about the investing, that is by classic examples of past AfD Deletions, obvious company-supplied information and PR. Having such blatant company-supplied information therefore clearly affects actually calling it "journalism", especially if there are budget cuts involved, therefore there's not only leniency in what's published, there's then leniency about who places what. Now, as for the others, not only are they also beginning with such puffery company-supplied information, the worst cases are, one, the fact the company is not mentioned until the sixth thin paragraph, it also then simply focuses with other events, the actual information about this company in those sentences then simply goes into sales-pitch mode talking about how the company works and how it can be used, next, is how the buying and selling methods work. This then goes to state interviewed information from the businessman and then goes to other specifics about the company's current business plans and actually then goes to end with the same damn sentence about who the investing people are', so that shows the peculiar similarities in the past 2 articles I've examined, showing the essence of interviewed information also, the fact how carefully crafted the article is. Now, the next article is also as blatant in that it noticeably contains interviewed information, and of course focuses only largely with what the company's current status is about funding and finances, it goes to say "Meanwhile, Zeek co-founder and CEO Daniel Zelkind tells me the startup isn’t yet profitable but implies that it could be if it chose to", this is an obvious attempt at seeking to interest clients and investors by enticing them about available business opportunities. The next one then goes to state about ""To use Zeek you simply need to download the free app from the App Store or Google Play, upload an unwanted gift voucher, set the price wanted and wait for a buyer. Zeek will send cash directly to sellers and vouchers to buyers, so everyone can get on with the purchases they would prefer to make, with either the cash they wanted, or a bonus on their voucher, which this is entirely PR and something only the company would say about itself, certainly not some uninvolved journalist, and then the article goes to en with an interview, but not before going into specifics about the company's business and finances. Also, see how the company article has changed from this and this, all of the essence of PR has in fact stayed and has actually become worse now that the PR sources listed. There is no amount of copyediting that fixes an article when its core and basis is advertising and that alone, because we are essentially simply fashioning it into something either the same or worse. Now, the last article listed contains noticeable amounts of interviews, such as beginning paragraphs, "Mr Eral admits", "Mr Eral saw", "Mr Eral talks about..." and this continues as the interview continues itself, and the information about some other matters about business school and education, the article simply contains a few other paragraphs until it ends, so that was hardly journalism at all, if a large amount was simply an interview (the last sets of paragraphs, for example, are all either interviews or company-supplied information, nothing actually independent). What still says, as my analyses had shown before above, is that this is clearly a company intent with finding and establishing any platforms it can obtain and use as advertising and PR, and it shows when a large amount of "news" are simply either interviews or company-supplied information such as the background of company-involved fundings and finances. Also, it's quite unlikely that any other amount of news would actually help, especially given what I have clearly stated above which was the concerns of using whatever news, because of the severity of churnalism. Once we start compromising about accepting advertisements, we have become a PR webhost. SwisterTwister   talk  03:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree that any of the reputable news organizations Globes, The Times of Israel, TrustedReviews, he:Geektime, Haaretz, TechCrunch, Digital Trends, and The Jerusalem Post are publishing content that is "entirely still PR" from Zeek. I cannot agree that these reputable sources "have financial gains and interests in the company itself". Do you have evidence for this exceptional claim? Cunard (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are from my quotes above, showing the specific examples where the majority of one of the articles simply contained the man saying his own words itself, that was not journalism if the "news" article kept going back to the man himself, instead of the journalist actually making her own efforts, but that was clearly not the case since the man was advertising his own company, making the article churnalism, in that the news source was simply publishing what the man and company said, not what said news source own words were. "Reputation" means nothing because there has been notoriety as it is that any source can easily republish PR and-or have the person themselves, such as the CEO or businessperson author the "news column" itself, so it is never convincing to state that any news source is automatically acceptable simply because it's a "news source", because once we start accepting anything that comes from there, we're not the closely analyzing encyclopedia that hopes and is careful to not accept advertising. There has been consensus also as it is at AfD that these news sources will even state themselves "This information comes from the company", showing how it was not even the news publication's own efforts, they simply republished company information. The notability guidelines themselves state that any sources must be actual substantial coverage itself, and because I noted above that the listed quotes were not substantial or independent, it's not a convincing source. SwisterTwister   talk  01:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). . North America1000 14:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment When the RSes are clearly running churnalism, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's possible to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is somehow a good idea, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would add that the language in this article is puffed up to the point of being comical: "...the company managed to secure a $9.5 million successful round...". Yes, the company's accomplishments have been to the point its ability to take money from investors. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
 * The best thing I can think of to fix it is to delete this worthless advertisement.
 * In addition, your use of sofixit comes across as not just snide and dismissive, but disingenuously reductive - the poster has outlined many problems with the present article, making out that fixing a lesser one than its extremely dubious notability is the one fix constitutes you deliberately ignoring the previous discussion right here on this page. This is not a helpful mode of discussion; please do not do this - David Gerard (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing your part to quell freedom of speech on Wikipedia. My comment is pure and only positive in intention. Also, my comment was geared toward K.e.coffman; perhaps allow the user time to respond before scolding good faith comments here before the user even responds. Also, I'm not ignoring any aspects of the discussion here, although you seem to entirely ignore those in favor of retaining the article, as though if any !voters for retention are all in error. Sorry, but this seems a bit biased. It's all good though. No worries. North America1000 14:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- yes, I also find the templated suggestions to not be appropriate in deletion discussions, as they do come across as condescending (pls see Don't template the regulars. I've seen this done at least twice by the same editor, and I would echo DG's suggestion to please avoid this practice. On the substance of NA's comment, I've expressed here and in other AfDs that promotional articles on marginally notable subjects cannot be improved through copyediting alone. If all the fluff were to be removed, what would be left is a WP:DIRECTORY listing, which Wikipedia is not. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * To the closing admin I would ask that you come up with as clear a "keep" or "delete" as you can, and not be distracted by the chaff thrown up by a remarkably concerned advocate - David Gerard (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An interesting suggestion, but any closer should also keep in mind that a no consensus close is allowed in AfD discussions, if such closure is warranted. Other potential closure options are also available. Discussions are not required to be closed exclusively as either keep or delete. Such either-or restrictions would over-simplify closure options on Wikipedia, essentially making discussion closures into a "yes" or "no" default, which is akin to a WP:SUPERVOTE, particularly when users have divergent opinions. See Wikipedia:Deletion process § Common outcomes and Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions for more information. Also, per the above, it's unclear who the "concerned advocate" would be here; who would this be, the nominator advocating for deletion, another user advocating for deletion, one of whom has provided two gigantic walls of text, or one of the users who have advocated for retention? Which user? North America1000 15:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: because article subject meets WP:GNG, and per WP:WORLDVIEW. An Israeli company is going to have different types of coverage than a US or UK company, but it still meets WP:SIGCOV based on Times of Israel, TechCrunch, and Globes. These are three examples of bylined articles offering significant coverage in publications with editorial oversight. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Commment - (1) The first 2 are ones that have been listed and counted as unconvincing (see analysis carefully above so mentioning those 2 new links are not acceptable and (2) the last one is literally talking about gift cards and how the business is making money, and it goes to talk about its own plans about money....That's not news, that's PR. As consensus recently has shown, simply iterating that there are news sources meaning nothing if the analysis and Delete votes above have explicitly shown it is the contents the matter, because, hell, the source could even be listing a press release and "Say: Press release by [company]" and that would be, nothing, literally nothing, except that they hired a PR agent for advertising. There is no substantial coverage if a source is simply repeating what the company's own information about their own business plans, because when it's a specific as these, it's not only showing the news source submitted every word, but that the company supplied that exact information. SwisterTwister   talk  02:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "mentioning those 2 new links are not acceptable...." I am allowed to have an opinion. I have one, and I shared it, and it is what it is. You may not agree with or like my opinion, but I have a right to have one. Please don't try to intimidate or bludgeon me into feeling that I am not allowed to share a legitimate and reasoned opinion here. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence meant that the links were unacceptable themselves, I'll note I never mentioned anything else in that comment. SwisterTwister   talk  15:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment With all these weeks of discussion and work on the article, there's still literal press releases being used as sources. Just tagged another two. Are these really the best that any of the "keep" editors can find? If so, that condemns the article itself - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - At his point, it looks like weak attempts are made from editors still asking for the deletion of the article. The fact that you are claiming that all major reporting done on the company is just PR is just astonishing. Moreover, I'd like to address the following quote: "'Yes, the company's accomplishments have been to the point its ability to take money from investors. :-)" The company's media coverage goes well beyond fundraising. Both CNBC and The Guardian articles are evidence that the company and its product do generate real interest in worldwide media, and has nothing to do with fundraising or PR. Please note that at this point the reason the article is incomplete in due to over moderation from editors seeking to delete the article. Ymd2004 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean, removing content and sources that aren't up to Wikipedia standards - I can't apologise for that - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – I have expanded the article. In the process, I have added several sources that are not included in my !vote above. North America1000 13:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer - Be aware that the history shows these supposed changes were actually simply to add specifications about the company's gift cards operations which of course is PR and this has been noted above with my analysis, the other ones are simply mere simple changes about it, particularly see also which shows the long history of concerns with this article and the noticeable actions of this only existing for PR and that alone. At the time of AfD starting, the article was this and it is now this, but let not the massive sources and information suggest otherwise, it's simply consisting of trivial and unconvincing information about the company, again an example is specifying information about company gift cards, which no one cares about aside from clients and investors and therefore only belongs at the company website instead. The article then actually cares to go to specifics about the numbers involving said clients and investors and of course the sources repeat this also, because it's unacceptable to simply state the fact it's a known news source automatically makes it acceptable, because as notorious as churnalism is becoming, we must take sources, especially ones heavily focused with company-supplied information, lest we become a PR webhost, which is clearly what the company and SPA users involved with this, considered it to be. There's particularly one user of concern, Eyaladam, which not only went to go as far as adding a massive amount of company PR, but then simply stated they were removing the advert templates themselves simply because they were the author, but that they certainly were not involved with the company....yet they never made any other contributions and they also focused quite heavily with this article alone, that's not something anyone would emphasize as boldly unless they had gains in this article itself. Note one sentence that was added "The company has the potential".... SwisterTwister   talk  22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- the article is still unconvincing, even with the recent changes. For example, it contains this material:
 * The mobile app is open to both buyers and sellers, and provides a secure platform for voucher transaction. Zeek's operations also accommodates the purchase of gift cards by consumers at a discounted rate compared to their face value. In April 2015, over 80,000 people were using the mobile app, and in December 2015 it had over 100,000 users. Zeek's profits are realized via commissions that are charged to sellers for each transaction. In July 2016, Zeek had 35 employees.


 * As SwisterTwister mentioned, this material belongs solely on the company's web site. This is not encyclopedic content. The uncritical inclusion of 80,000 and 100,000 "users" is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. This could only have come from the company, and is not independently verifiable since the company is private. With such editing, Wikipedia becomes a churnalism platform itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The number of users demonstrates the company's impact and provides a claim of significance, and has been reported in reliable sources. I'll throw in an oherstuffexists argument here: if figures pertaining to user information is going to be omitted from Wikipedia, then we better delete the second two paragraphs in the lead of the Facebook article right away, because it contains content about users, including numbers of users! Furthermore, in the Facebook lead, the number of users is verified using this primary source! Well, at least in this Zeek article, secondary sources are used to verify this information! North America1000 23:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The comparison is not pertinent as Facebook is a billion dollar corporation which is WP:LISTED and a subject of great scrutiny. This is clearly not happening with Zeek. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So company-provided figures are okay for large companies, but figures provided by secondary sources for smaller companies are no good? You allude above that company-provided figures are problematic, yet also appear to state just above that it's also okay, depending on the size of the company. No offense is intended here, and I appreciate your points, (e.g. Facebook is much larger and under more scrutiny) but Wikipedia articles are based upon what reliable sources state, whereas primary sources should be used sparingly and with discretion. North America1000 03:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's big difference between large WP:LISTED companies and private, venture-funded ones. The former are independently audited and under a great deal of scrutiny. The latter could be lying through their teeth, and the Wikipedia editors are taking this at face value, turning this promotional materials into something that is (ostensibly) authoritatively presented in Wikipedia's voice. For example, please see this uncritical editing in action: "according to the company" was conveniently left out. The editor had presented the number (that even the publication attributed to the company) as info independently verified by RS, as they claimed: "Appboy’s software processes approximately 2 billion messages per month between 420 million users. – this is verified by the Fortune article." (same diff as already linked). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - This certainly cannot be compared to Facebook, an established company compared to this one which is still needing money and investors. SwisterTwister   talk  01:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete because nobody has effectively countered SwisterTwister's deep analysis of the sources, except to suggest that we can trust that journalism occurred in "reliable sources" even with no examples of such given. Simply saying "but it was covered by {laundry list}!" doesn't suffice -- how it's covered is critical.  If it's covered in a passing or run-of-the-mill or PR-ish way, we cannot go by that, unless we wish to cheapen this encyclopedia.  At best for this subject, it's WP:TOOSOON.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 12:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment restating the same repepetive content is by no means any sort of deep analysis. There is no need to counter SwisterTwister's "deep analysis" of the sources because it is simply not convincing. Ymd2004 (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have clearly and staunchly listed exactly the unacceptable parts from those listed sources above, and I have also been clear that we cannot compare this to other articles especially worldwide ones such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. because they are not the same subject, I repeat myself to make these concerns clear, not because it's "convincing", other comments have stated these same concerns, so it's not a matter of "affected analysis or statements" at all. The Delete votes have still continued in noting the concerns. SwisterTwister   talk  19:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely a need to counter it, and how dare you talk down someone's good faith analysis. If you cannot counter the arguments made, you have no case for keeping, unless you can find other reliable sources demonstrating significant, non-promo coverage.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Convincing arguments for deletion have been made; in particular it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources are blatantly WP:SPIP and using these for notability is a violation of WP:NOTPROMO. Many of these sources quote the organisations employees and use it as a story source which is explicitly not allowed by WP:ORGIND. I am amazed that the Forbes/sites (not Forbes) has been considered a reliable source when it is very obvious that there is no journalistic oversight. In many of these sources presented, the amount coverage is so limited that the entirety of it has been pasted into this AfD. That's not indepth coverage. The rest of the "news" is essentially very brief pieces about funding which clearly show that they have been placed by the company. None of this is useful for notability. More importantly, I see this as a case of a COI editor pushing to "keep" the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Canvassing concerns Check out some of these attempts to influence the discussion:, , , , , . I see a COI here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I am concerned by the heavy persistence of somehow attempting to think not acknowledging the actual concerns listed, by thinking others will say differently, is not actually what will happen. SwisterTwister   talk  05:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

<li>WP:SPIP & WP:NOTPROMO- While I can understand the concerns raised about the promotional language of some of the sources, I 'd like to point out that currently there are 16 different sources stated in the article. Some sources openly criticize the company's product. That is while the article is heavily moderated i.e those sources do comply with WP:SPIP.</li> <li>WP:ORGIND- None of the sources referenced in the article have been written by the organization or any of its members and disclosure of collaboration was not used in the articles. This leads me to believe that the media coverage provided is independent by nature. Every time a journalist interview's a company's point person information is exchanged. Although I can understand how some of it can pass as self-promotion, I think the extent of the coverage exceeds well beyond standard media coverage by far. Furthermore, there is a wide range of information provided by the article's sources that details much more than just fundraising or the investors behind Zeek such as the company's business model, services rendered and current activity.</li> <li>WP:TOOSOON- This is probably the weakest argument of all. Perhaps could be true if the article was published in early 2015. At this point the company has a clear business model with and has made a notable impact in worldwide mainstream media</li></ul> Ymd2004 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2016
 * Note to closing admin: I am well aware of the concerns raised by opposing editors regarding the article. But I don't believe they are justified at this stage of the article. The subject here should be the actual content of the article as opposed to how the information as it is presented by the media, although I do think It can be said with great certainty that Financial Times, Haaretz, The Guardian, Globes, and CNN Money are trusted sources. In regards to the claims made by opposing editors regarding COI. I'm not the creator of the article, but I do think it meets WP:CORPDEPTH and worth preserving. I did seek help in improving the article and I see nothing wrong with that. Editors seek help every single day in Wikipedia and as a community, we should strive to help one another as much as possible under the proper guidelines. I can't apologize for doing by best to improve the article. I did not try to intimate Wiki editors like other editors that have participated in this discussion.Ymd2004 (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2016
 * I don't mind you finding folks to improve this article (although it kind of looks like canvassing), but it is clear to me that you're not really considering the reasons behind the delete positions. I can see this because you're not effectively responding to any of the concerns that are based in policies/guidelines.  Repeating that {laundry list of sources} are trusted sources isn't a serious response.  You need to make a case why WP:SPIP, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:ORGIND and WP:TOOSOON don't apply.  If you found any non-promo language (true journalism) in any reliable source and presented it, while also demonostrating that such is significant coverage, it will be considered.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 15:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Allow me to answer your concerns, I think we should examine the current state of the article independent of the article's history. In regards to the article sources; I'd like to point out that we should try to review the information itself, not how it is presented. In regards to WP:SPIP, WP:NOTPROMO, WP:ORGIND and WP:TOOSOON:<ul>
 * Keep It passes WP:GNG. –seanhaley1 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is rather thin here because, as shown by the analysis the sources themselves are PR and so is the article and this also shows by the fact this article's history suggests it was only started by PR in and of itself, and that's something we take quite seriously, lest we become a damned website because of PR webhosting. SwisterTwister   talk  04:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would question the contribution from Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1; this is a brand new account and already voting at AfDs. How would an editor with a 2-day old account know what "salt" is in deletion discussions? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This account was created on October 2, in the middle of this AfD. Many of the article edits were without merit and I reverted them. If this is a sockpuppet, then it's one that is seemingly trying to appear independent (behavior-wise) of a participant in this AfD, as the article edits were kind of silly (e.g., unlinking red links and poor grammar changes) and the articles and AfDs chosen for editing/participation seem scattershot.  But telling in the AfD !votes is a sensitivity to whether an article is promotional (delete) and if the subject appears in a sufficient number of sources per Google search (keep). I wish I had more to go on for a sockpuppet report.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 16:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom This is the height of misusing sources to create Wikipedia entry. Merely citing sources does not make anything notable. And the above case of using fake accounts to Keep vote is highly questionable. Light2021 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: At this point, it seems the account does more harm than good for this discussion. The weak keep argument made by this user seems like an attempt to harm the article's credibility more than anything else.Ymd2004 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2016
 * Comment, (warning, totally off-topic!) wow! is this some sort of record, an article of around 300 words (excluding references) generating an afd of about 12,000 words, does wiki have an article on "List of really, really, really, really long afds"? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is precise what is explored in WP:BOGOF. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I find the responses to my request above to be unsubstantial. Continuing with the crutch of a multiplicity of sources, and simply the opinion that the sources check out as significant non-promo coverage, isn't enough to counter SwisterTwister's analysis. Also, WP:TOOSOON isn't necessarily as time-restrictive as suggested -- it's about whether a subject has yet proven itself notable. There's no timetable set for that.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 13:19, 7 October 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.