Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zego (insurance)


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Zego (insurance)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was speedily deleted per criterion G11, but that was overturned here, with a "no consensus" result. At DRV, speedy deletions are typically undone on no consensus, but under the circumstances, it seemed prudent to list the restored article for discussion. As the closing admin at DRV, I will remain neutral on what should be done. Wily D 15:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable, PR, however potentially it could become notable one day, until then though delete --Devokewater @  15:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's a bunch of sources, but most of them don't meet WP:NCORP.  For example, the fist two, https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk and https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/, published one day apart, are clearly warmed over press releases, which even have the same quotes from the CEO.  Most of the other sources are routine announcements of closing funding rounds and the like.  Obvious WP:UPE.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Admittedly, the company is relatively well known in its space. But it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. The best sources we have we TechCrunch, Business Insider and a passing mention in the Financial Times (quite literally one sentence in an article about something else). TechCrunch isn't usually accepted for notability, per discussions on RSN. I'd say Business Insider is kinda meh for notability too, although at a glance I can only find discussions on reliability. But either way, WP:NCORP isn't met. Article reads like promo and appears to be is the product of UPE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: It has received some coverage: its coverage from FinTech, its expansion of partnership with RSA, its collaboration with discover, being the first tech company to have its own insurance license and its funding. With these reliable sources, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I took a look at those. They are all in niche industry publications (failing WP:AUD) and every one looks like a slightly warmed-over press release (not WP:INDEPENDENT) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. typical of these non-notable tech startups to use wiki as their promotional ground just because they have some coverage in media. just a promotions and nothing else. wiki is not a press release blog. too early to be wiki-notable Light2021 (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NCORP, WP:MILL, and WP:SIGCOV. If this is paid spam, they were robbed. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2020 (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.