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. Overall consensus is that the article meets CORDEPH as well as GNG so closing as keep (non-admin closure)Davey2010Talk 00:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Payoneer[edit]

Payoneer (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)

This was kept in 2011, but think our standards for companies, particularly internet-based companies, are much higher now. The only actually substantial RS is the Inc42article, and it reads like using a minor announcement as an excuse for an advertorial.

It's grown some since 2011--it now has 7,000employees, but that still makres it a rather small company. Most of the awards listed on its wesite are awardsfor "fastest growing". I think it's excellent that companies list them on their web site, because the intrinsic actual meaning of such an award is not yet notable . K.e.coffman helpfully removed the promotionalism , but it is still not notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The "Washington post" article is actually their reprint from telechrunch.com, with telechrunch's 2008 copyright on it. To tell the truth, this really surprised me. I never realized they did this.
I do not consider ET a RS for N, and the article proves it, for in fact is just quoting the company's executive.
Deccan Hreald just the same, quoting another of the company's execs.
NY Post is not a RS for business news or anything else--it's essentially a right wing tabloid.
IBT is the same company exec that the Deccan Herald made a pretense of interviewing DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that The Washington Post published a TechCrunch article demonstrates that The Washington Post considers TechCrunch to be a reliable source. North America1000 02:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is one way of looking at it, but the more obvious interpretation is that the WP makes no attempt to follow proper journalistic standards in its coverage of internet companies. DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That the editors of The Washington Post decided that the techcrunch article[1] was suitable for republication in their paper only increases the strength of the WP:RS claim. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of your claim in a previous AFD that a Forbes contributor blog would count as an RS because Forbes wouldn't damage their brand name that way - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about Payoneer. In the unrelated discussion regarding a Forbes source, I also struck the source later on per the discussion there, and made no claim whatsoever of "Forbes wouldn't damage their brand name that way". It's entirely unclear how you came to this conclusion, but you're wrong; nothing of the sort was stated by me. When commenting about other users, please try to present an accurate account of actual matters that occurred. Better yet, please try to focus on the actual topic at hand. North America1000 10:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been significant coverage in many third party independent sources, particularly in top tier media reliable sources, and it certainly measures up to the criteria for WP:CORPDEPTH. The article should be expanded on, and it should not be a marketing piece, but it should be a Wiki articleVeggies 2 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2016 (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.