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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Payoneer[edit]

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

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Was speedy deleteted 3 times previously as G11: Blatant advertising: Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original creator of this article. It was basically a stub, was not promotional, and had solid citations. It was approved by the editor, Alpha Quadrantand subsequently cleaned-up by other diligent editors. My goal is to create a series of articles on alternative payment types . . . in my spare time as it were. This is an extremely relevent topic. Unfortunately, a lot of people (and anonymous or banned users) have taken liberties, added promotion, and deleted good citations . So, as a lone company, they may not be highly notable. But in the landscape of alternative payment types, Payoneer is notable and relevant. I believe the best course of action is to revert the article back to the version dated 22:01, 5 March 2011and police it better. Meshatz (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what it is about this article that makes it blatant advertising. I just reread it and honestly don't feel it's misleading. Just the opposite, there are sections here that I would probably delete if I were to be promoting the company.

As for the sources, again, I'm not sure how it makes it worse. They are clearly newsworthy, and a search on Google shows over 300,000 mentions, which is by no means trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.204.32 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the New York Times and Techcrunch could be considered as sources that are not noteworthy. Milchama (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It feels mighty thin, and I'm half tempted to put a Delete here. But there is some coverage, if you include the terrorist thing - so I'll take some more time to look into this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in this article as "advertising" - it's describing the business model of the company and referencing work done in conjunction with other reputable companies. This article should be retained and linked to a broader article on electronic payment methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.52.96.9 (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article and tried to make it sound more objective and less like a press release. I'm not sure deletion is the right way to go, maybe more editing could make it more informational and helpful to users of Wikipedia. Hhcaas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhcaas (talk • contribs) 09:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for information about Payoneer following a press release, and could not find sufficient information about it, including in this article. Payoneer is a large company with millions of customers and users, and therefore article should definitely not be deleted, but rather updated and improved. I will do my best to help in this process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michts (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the citations from the version dated 22:01, 5 March 2011 were from news sources. Most of the remaining PRs were from reliable third parties. The first 3 speedy deletes were warranted. The article in it's originally approved through 5 March 2011 form was not promotional. Meshatz (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article has significant coverage in reliable third party sources. I have restored the March 5th version of the article, as it was not an advertisemnt. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I only see routine coverage here not something satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. Most venture funds raises get a brief story like that in specialist venues. The mainstream media articles don't focus on this company; the coverage there is incidental. Those terrorists also used somebody else's prepaid cards. "In addition, police distributed a map showing the numbers of 17 credit cards allegedly obtained by the suspects from financial institutions in Germany, Britain and the U.S. state of Iowa." followed by "Dubai police tied MetaBank to another American company, Payoneer Inc., which provides prepaid MasterCards issued by MetaBank and other lenders. The role of the privately held company, which is based in New York and has a research and development center in Tel Aviv, was not immediately clear." This mention justifies an article? I don't think so. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep actually. The coverage in The New York Observer is quite substantial [1] [2], and should be used to expand this article to cover the company's history and market share (Russia, etc.) FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not only because of the mentions in the articles about the assassination (which are not only passing mentions, but very in-depth in several cases), but there is also sufficient coverage about the business itself (many start-ups that come through AfD would die to have this much coverage). Here are other links, I think none of them duplicates those already available [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] - frankie (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2011 (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.