Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paymentwall

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 keep. The arguments to keep the article have demonstrated that Paymentwall has received significant coverage by third-party sources so that the subject meets the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Additional concerns that the article is "too promotional" to keep have been addressed through edits by Northamerica1000 and can be continued to be improved through editing. Overall consensus based on policy is to keep the article. Malinaccier (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paymentwall

Paymentwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only purpose is to promote it. Corporate Spam to its soul. Adweek article is poor as the article itself. Press coverage are given as a references. Corporate brochure written into encyclopedia. should be G11 material. Light2021 (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is this countering the nomination's valid basis for "Only purpose is to promote it and G11 material"? That in fact would violate our WP:Deletion policy since it in indeed confirms promotion is deleted, not salvaged. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you feel that the nom feels that notability is not a problem here, and that there is therefore no need for me to draw attention to notability.  And you have the personal view that notability is not at issue.  But if you look again, you will see that the nomination mentions "references", yet fails to show that the references are a problem that needs the attention of the community.  So we are back to WP:BEFORE D1.  And the long list of references that Cunard found. 

Is there promotion in this article that is not fixable?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since notability is not the only thing of attention here, but instead it's promotionalism, see Paymentwall, is a payment platform for games, virtual goods, and web services available in 200 countries [and territories] with $2 billion in revenue. It started out from a cooperation of the American Honor Gunday and the Ukrainian Vladimir Kovalyov. Now it faces a prospect of pursuing an IPO within 3-5 years (regardless if the information was from someone uninvolved in the company, because it's the contents that matter and these are promotional), Paymentwall was founded in April 2010 by Turk Honor Gunday and Ukrainian Vladimir Kovalyov....The main clients of the company have been and are the owners of online games and web portals with premium options, such as dating sites, online cloud services, and online games. Paymentwall allows users around the globe to purchase digital content using any of 85+ local payment systems, including various types of payment like credit cards, mobile phones, ATMs, terminals, and many others. According to Kovalev, more than 30,000 clients already use Paymentwall, from young game developers, for whom parents sign their first contract, to multinational corporations. The company's solutions are available....and maintains offices in...." (it wouldn't matter that this article contains one unshown controversy because the setting is still company overview advertising which is unacceptable), 4 is from a trade tech publication which is simply a general news report, something WP:ORGIND says cannot be accepted.Paymentwall was founded in 2010, and it has 110 employees. It says it has processed payments for more than 150 million unique users across more than 50,000 merchants. Rivals include Braintree (part of PayPal), Apple Pay, Stripe, Boku, and Adyen. Paymentwall is self-funded. It started as an alternative offer-wall provider when Facebook gaming was thriving. Paymentwall set up a technology platform that would enable the developers to accept not just credit cards and mobile payments but other solutions like...." (Instant violations of WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Promotion), 7 is another general news report, Paymentwall Company provides a global payment platform for payment of virtual goods in social networks, online games and Internet services. All four offices of the company - in San Francisco, Berlin, Istanbul and Kiev - have a common interior concept. Designer furniture, yellow walls, disco-balls and music create a cozy atmosphere. A large coin inlaid with gold is a symbol of the company. (once again a company overview announcement), Paymentwall, a global monetisation platform founded in California in 2010, opening its 10th foreign office in Beijing recently. Paymentwall began working with Chinese video game makers and social networks such as...." (not only contains named-mentions but offers nothing but a mirror image "About Us"),Paymentwall is a global payment service provider for game development companies, software as a service (SaaS) providers, dating sites, TV streaming providers, and news organizations (such as [this publication company]), The company is headquartered in San Francisco and has 10 offices around the world. It serves 70,000 merchants in more than 200 countries. (showing it's not only a company customer, but it's literally republishing what the company's own "About" is, therefore violating WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Not webhost, WP:Deletion policy and WP:Promotion, wherever published), 11 is a republished announcement in a clear "business interest" section therefore indiscriminate. While the company's income is a significant factor, our priorities are far higher in maintaining encyclopedia integrity, not becoming a company advertiser. By actually suggesting that we compromise with keeping it without assurance it will be advertising-free is not a policy basis, in fact it's a WP:ITSVALUABLE or WP:ITSNOTABLE argument. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please concise your arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the promotionalism here has a bigger outweigh than any of the few benefits, and this is shown by other available sources, see News search: to start, 1 is a press release, 2 is an indiscriminate announcement as are the additional 3 following, 5th is then a labeled press release, 6 is a circumstantial lawsuit (from 2015, that is), 7-14 are back to announcements in various publishers and places, some are in German, English and some are in local business or trade journals, therefore the logic here is that the company is responsible for motivating such attention. The only sensible thing here is to consider them all indiscriminate announcements or notices since that's what the founded basis is in all of them; the only suitable place for that is where publishers accept them such as news websites, but after all, we're WP:Not a newspaper and that's what matters in content here, especially when such offered contents were: *"Paymentwall said....Payment can help expand....[it] presents a full page of....pay via PayPal, credit cards, mobile payments....The company now has 75 differnt options....[They] have added partnerships in...." and, especially blatant is this unhidden of a republished press release here or the next one:
  • "By collaborating with Paymentwall...." and then "....shopping experience in [Europe] is now more convenient....", or "....comprehensive 150+ payment methods....easy payment....", "announced that Paymentwall....available in....200 countries....", "Paymentwall is hoping....". Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is this different than the exhaustive analysis by the Delete side which shows this fits WP:Deletion policy's criteria of "do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed"? WP:CORP itself says the WP:Deletion policy is a priority that must be met before any articles are considered. Is there supposed to be an exception for technology companies of interest? For example, one of the Keeps consists of only a "no evidence of searches" yet promotionalism is a criteria in WP:Deletion policy for deletion, therefore not relevant if searches were made or not. As WP:Articles for deletion says, votes must be strongly based in policy and especially address any relevant concerns. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns with promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article and discussion on its talk page. Cherry picking quotes from news articles does not represent the full perspective and content of those articles. North America1000 20:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then please do improve the article but, remember, that any rewordings or similar is not what WP:Copyediting supports in establishing notability (WP:N). Also, as for the comments, they were not cherry-picked, but literally what each paragraph started with, in those relevant articles. Therefore, the fact any immediate connections to the company were shown, shows it's not actually independent, or else they wouldn't mirror each other. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may perform improvements if the article is retained. I hesitate to spend my time and energy performing work that may be subsequently deleted. Also, AfD is not cleanup. North America1000 21:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But, as WP:GNG says, articles must be in a presently acceptable condition to be accepted or else there wouldn't be any proven needs of an article. Also, the AfdIsNotCleanup, actually begins with the openly clear statement: upon the issues listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy...It is important when taking part in deletion discussions to anchor one's rationale in relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as notability, verifiability, what Wikipedia is not, neutral point of view which is what the nomination began with; also, to quote again that page, it says As problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability. Whereas, AfDisNotCleanup is a minor essay, WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Deletion policy are accepted policies overall. SwisterTwister talk 21:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry picking quotes from news articles does not represent the full perspective and content of those articles. North America1000 17:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets GNG. See, for example, THIS ARTICLE from bankingtech.com and THIS from bankinnovation.net. Spammy tone is an editing matter; I chopped out one egregiously promotional section. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can that be if GNG was quoted above with An article is presumed to be notable if it's excluded under the WP:What Wikipedia is not (policy). To examine your sources, the first is:
  • "San Francisco-based Paymentwall has integrated....says , payment project manager at Paymentwall....Paymentwall says that....Paymentwall says that as...."We will allow", they say....Reference: Paymentwall Facebook page."
  • "Paymentwall announced on April 12....A company official told....Honor Gunday, who heads business development.....[They] see the potential....Payment wall has appealed...."

As by WP:GNG, it says multiple independent reliable coverage independent of the subject and if that's what offers here, it's not acceptable, regardless if we mistakenly consider it as such. As for the "Spammy tone is an editing matter", the WP:Deletion policy says: Any material unsuitable for an encyclopedia article must be removed. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simply for the record, to add since users are suggesting here the article can easily be remedied and changed into better, the time of this AfD has shown no significant changes from this (AfD nomination) and now here. As one of our guides says, as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability and WP:GNG: Articles must be in an improved state to qualify. In fact, take cases like this where, instead of removing a promotional paragraph, only 1 part of it was removed.
  • Or cases like this were the article wasn't actually improved, but instead: The official website was re-jacketed into a different form.

As our WP:What Wikipedia is not policy, says listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and, so if the article can't be fundamentally improved beyond that, it has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. As our WP:Five pillars say, visitors should expect a serious neutral and independent encyclopedia, not one where companies are expected or given exemptions, simply because of general or special interests. As our WP:Deletion policy says, articles that are potentially of concern can be tagged, yet the history here shows such tags are quickly removed, this goes against our WP:TC guidelines on maintenance, and that only shows the article would be hindered from attempts to de-spam, if it's even happening as the AfD is ongoing. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Regarding the "listings" content above in bold, it is taken out of context. The full text is located here, which is prefaced by Simple listings without context information.... The article does not contain simple listings without context information. North America1000 18:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context wouldn't matter since what the sources say are primary words, thus saying whatever they please; that, in that aspect of Independence, is not the context we need. Press releases could be considered by some as context yet we never accept those in Notability or anything. How else can this be interpreted differently but that? The highlight I showed above explicitly said that any of those things typically found in a press release (employees, finances, sales, products, etc.) thus it actually speaks quite clearly. The same thing can be said for a local Yellow pages; it can be considered as context yet we never accept it. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Will try to improve the article over the day. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to improve it but of course keep to mind, that direly important changes are needed; especially since it can't be guaranteed this won't be renominated later. SwisterTwister talk 19:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paymentwall&oldid=1220815252"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paymentwall, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.