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 no consensus. No further discussion after HighKing provided several sources, despite relist. SoWhy 07:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Payzone[edit]

Payzone (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)

No references. Very "marketing" language, although not outright promotional. WP:GNG doesn't seem to be met based on a search of Google sources. I was able to find the following, but I don't think it's adequate for notability. It's mostly press release rehashes. [1] [2] [3] ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have removed the section which was promoting the company's various services so that it is now providing largely referenced text about the company. This leaves the question whether the coverage, largely about the successive private equity sales and routine announcements, is sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, at the time there was a lot of similar services that had articles so it seemed logical to give Payzone one too. No problem if it goes. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Parent company has no Wikipedia Page. It lacks Corporate Depth concerns. Article is trimmed down to 1 Paragraph. It is acquired and serves the Directory purpose alone. Such acquisition and business news are common. wikipedia is not Newspaper. Light2021 (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- as corporate spam and for lack of sufficient sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. I'm seeing some mentions but the article in its current form is 100% promo and this content should be excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. Any marginal notability is cancelled out by the promotional intent and content. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the article could do with some improving, there are multiple sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Here are a small number by way of example: betterRetailing article from very recent times in relation to a minor PayZone-related controversy, forecourttrader article covering the same minor controversy, this national newspaper article, while mostly about the founder, provides a simple summary of the company and highlights its notability as being the dirst Irish company to float on London's AIM in 1997 and finally this national newspaper article while again being about the founder also includes some information on the company. Therefore the topic meets GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of the last two sources qualify as "substantive coverage" about the company in the sense of GNG. It is only briefly summarized in connection with the founder, who is the subject of the actual substantive coverage. Further, the former two articles are in highly obscure trade websites; they don't appear to publish their editorial policies, and it's questionable whether they'd be considered reliable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree because you are incorrectly dismissing sources. There is no requirement for "substantive" coverage, only "significant" coverage which is defined as "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Both national newspapers are more than a trivial mention as it is more than a name-drop and goes on to provide details of the company even though the company is not the main topic. Also I disagree that betterretailing or forecourttrader are not reliable sources. Nevertheless, only two sources are required and there are two national newspaper sources that meet the criteria. There are a number of other sources available if you search for previous names of the company such as this one, and this and even this from The Times. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Additional source searches are listed below, based upon the company's former name. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.