- 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- MyPOS (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)
Non-notable company. The vast majority of sources provided are press-releases, advertorials or entries on list sites. The former lacks reliability, the latter merely confirms its existence. Google search did not result in required independent editorial coverage of the product to establish notability. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- every company operating in the UK will be listed in companies house. Every payment processor in the UK will be listed on the BACS site, every regulated financial services company in the UK will have an FCA entry. This is business as usual and insufficient for notability. As for the rest, most are PR which lacks independence or are about routine company business. Please provide examples of independent editorial coverage that satisfies WP:ORG. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added few independent reliable citations such as Dnevnik (Bulgarian newspaper), Capital (newspaper), International Business Times, El Economista (Spain) and Pymnts. These resources must not the press releases. AntiNom (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @AntiNom: thanks for this. I cannot access the Dnevnik article as it is behind a paywall. As for the others, they are hardly suitable. Capital: broad overview of the POS market, with a passing mention of the subject; IBT: topic is Amazon Go, where the subject is again mentioned in passing only; El Economista: definitely a press-release; Pymnts: advertorial - an "interview" with a senior figure of the company about how they can "help" the taxi industry. Hardly independent. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable company. Ther is insufficient in-depth and persistent coverage in relaible sources to indicate notability; as noted above, News outlets show only promotional mentions and plugs for their services in either pres releases or trade literature. Fauls WP:NCORP. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above on sourcing. Note that I've removed the product list in the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, especially with respect to WP:CORPDEPTH. There are only sources provided in the article that aren't sponsored content or lack significant coverage are churnalism written by the likes of "Retail Insight Network", "Pymnts", and "Digital Energy Solutions", none of which appear to have an editorial team. — Newslinger talk 00:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added so many Independent Reliable Resources. I think these resources are enough to justify the subject notability. I request to all editors please check the all citations before delete this article. I just added few independent reliable resources such as Talking Retail, quotidianpost.it, IB Times, pctechmag, Total Croatia News, Gondola (magazine) and Business.com. AntiNom (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is really all more of the same. A mixture of mentions in passing, reproductions of PR, advertorials, etc. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:59, 8 August 2018 (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.