Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SadaPay (2nd nomination)

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. While opinion was pretty evenly split, those editors arguing to Keep failed to provide reliable sources that could be used to establish notability, even when asked multiple times by other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SadaPay

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every reference is PR and churnalism. Every reference is a PR announcement. Fails WP:NCORP and the key tenet of WP:V. This is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Pakistan, and Turkey. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My delete !vote stands. I am still not satisfied with all the sources presented so far to establish WP:NORG for SadaPay. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: I've nominated for deletion the BLP of the founder of Sadapay, but I believe this article about the company should be kept. Considering the sign./in-depth press coverage the company has garnered - such as Pakistan Today, Pakistan Today, Bloomberg. Express Tribune - the company may meet WP:GNG. Fwiw, it is Pakistan's most-funded fintech. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single reference is regurgitated PR. With this referencing it fails. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, Well the coverage provided by Pakistan Today consists of investigative stories rather than press releases. And, Bloomberg typically doesn't cover Pakistani companies unless they are making some impacts. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first Pakistan Today ref is a lightly-rephrased press release. Compare this and this. The second, of course, is an entirely-routine funding announcement failing WP:ORGTRIV. —Cryptic 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic, Alright, you've sold me. Count me in! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib Did you mean only to strike your !vote and not enter a different opinion? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE it, I say! I'm also not very convinced it meets WP:NCORP. Saqib (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject meets the WP:ORGCRIT. Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mfarazbaig The references must show this. They do not. Your argument is WP:ILIKEIT which carries no weight in this discussion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago we deleted this because it was almost entirely unsourced and the only sources anybody could find were press releases and routine announcements. Now we have a new article with mostly those same sources in them - not even new marketing material and reports of funding, but the same ones that were available and rejected before. The few that postdate the deletion are no better: Ref 7 is an announcement of an acquisition consisting almost entirely of quotes with the remaining two sentences verbatim from a press release; ref 8 is better-written, but still an announcement of the same acquisition and still routine; and ref 9 is an unreliable piece by a "Forbes contributor". The lack of improvement is so stark that I seriously considered G4ing it again. Delete. —Cryptic 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just a quick browse I found references articles that are not press release.--Cube b3 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then, tell us what they are and we can consider them. I'm willing to be convinced. I'm even, within reason, willing to help you convince me! But with neither evidence nor analysis, bare assertions like yours and Mfarazbaig's (the article creator) above are worth nada. —Cryptic 20:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Cube b3 I'm in total agreement with @Cryptic on this. Convince us. Otherwise this is a worthless !vote, which I am sure is not what you intended. I did a search, quite a detailed one, and found none. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any editor may, during this discussion,especially when they declare that they have foiund good new references, improve the article and ask for it to be reconsidered under Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard once improved. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Coverage in Profit by Pakistan Today magazine is direct, in-depth, and balanced ([1], [2]). Then, there is additional coverage in DAWN ([3], [4]) and Bloomberg described it as the country's most-funded fintech in a routine funding round (such type of startups are almost always notable in the UK or US). WP:COMMONSENSE applies. 2A04:4A43:908F:F69C:81E4:3987:8686:1121 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — 2A04:4A43:908F:F69C:81E4:3987:8686:1121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to see a review of sources brought to the discussion by the IP editor. Other Keep votes making assertions without providing citations are not worth much at all
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage provided by IP fails WP:SIRS. Saqib (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is exactly what WP:SIRS requires, quoted below:

1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

This article in Profit was written by its staff and is a more-than-3000-word investigative journalism. This article is also by a staff member, is directly about SadaPay, and is more than 4k words long. I hope you're in good health (with all this hard work) because you're making a lot of wrong assessments and sloppy AfDs lately. Please consider slowlying down and not every comment need your reply (as multiple time requested on your talkpage recently). 2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC) — 2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076, But it's not just me. Both @Timtrent and @Cryptic also turned down the same coverage, dismissing it as "PR," as you can see above. — Saqib (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP - I hadn't voted to delete before, but now I did, because you failed to convince me. Also please try to avoid WP:PA as they're not helpful. Best wishes! --Saqib (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have analysed all the sources. Each is blatant churnalism, all are WP:PRIMARY. Arguments to the contrary cannot stand 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's spam.Tehonk (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2024 (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.