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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azimo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails current standard of WP:NCORP. Almost all the information is about financing and routine features. Most of what look like good refs, like BBC, are actually promotional interviews where the founder says what they please. DGG ( talk ) 13:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CORPDEPTH and the appearance of WP:FORUMSHOP. Article has just been kept after a comprehensive and very precise discussion of sources that isn't addressed in the nomination. Instead we're back at generalizations so this nomination is a setback. Specifically, it does not deal with the TWO sources that were found to be in-depth even by one of Wikipedia's most critical and consistent delete sayers from twelve possibly valid sources. The only specific example now is an obvious one and is no longer relevant once valid sources for WP:CORPDEPTH were identified. Moreover it's a returning red herring in nominations of this company. The nomination is atypical for this nominator, who I especially appreciate for his quality contributions and superb work together spanning many many years! gidonb (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, perhaps you could help by removingt he sources which you think are low quality, leaving only the ones that are.I'm always willing to reconsider DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I do not see a problem with any references. Not all count toward notability but that is the USUAL SITUATION. As long as they can support the data they reference there is NO PROBLEM. Which brings me to the conclusion: if you do not have a case to delete an article – and you clearly don't as notability by WP:CORPDEPTH has been FIRMLY ESTABLISHED – you should not keep an AfD open. If you only seek to clean up an article, as far as I can see under the wrong impression that there might be a problem, then this would be a classic case of WP:WRONGFORUM. 11:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Nothing appears to have changed since the previous discussion was closed as keep. The sources provided by Cunard in the previous discussion, and the sources currently cited in the article, establish notability in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Clymo, Rob (2020-10-30). "Azimo money transfer review". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.

     This is a detailed review of Azimo.

  2. Bown, Jessica; Brady, Niall (2013-02-23). "Money Made Easy: Your five-minute guide to... overseas money transfers". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.

     This is a detailed overview of how to use Azimo.

  3. Munro, Andrew (2020-12-31). "Azimo review. Get competitive rates and fast transfers — but not if you're a US resident". Finder. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.

     This is a detailed review of Azimo. The website has editorial guidelines about independence, objectivity, accuracy, and accountability.

  4. Cook, James (2019-08-26). "Payments firm Azimo plans £100m float - Payments sector still ripe for disruption, says Azimo chief". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  5. Gee, Rachel (2016-05-09). "How one brand is disrupting the finance industry". Marketing Week. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  6. Arnold, Martin (2018-05-29). "Rakuten invests in UK payments group Azimo". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  7. Ahmed, Murad (2015-06-15). "Remittances group Azimo raises $20m on valuation of $100m". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  8. Robinson, Duncan (2013-09-13). "Azimo to expand with new funding". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  9. Robinson, Duncan (2013-02-11). "Money app aimed at Facebook users". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  10. Waller, David (2016-05-18). "Start-ups help those coming to Britain to start over". The Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  11. Oxlade, Andrew (2013-02-13). "Azimo first to transfer cash using Facebook". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  12. Lunn, Emma; Collinson, Patrick (2013-04-12). "10 of the best money-saving apps". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Azimo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2021 (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.