Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant payment flow

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 09:12Z

Instant payment flow

I do not think it is notable yet. Also looks like an Original research to me Alex Bakharev 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google pulls up a whopping 9 hits. Aplomado ^talk 23:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and most of those are for the same single web site. This concept appears to be the invention of a single person at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. There is no evidence that anyone apart from that one person, who wrote about it in xyr Masters thesis, has acknowledged this concept; and that it has gained any traction whatsoever in the world outside of that one person. There are no papers, books, or articles by anyone else on this subject. This is original research, and the article is blatantly non-neutral, being written in the first person and talking about what "we have to" do. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Uncle G 23:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"New payment paradigm"? Please. Delete this junk and don't go to the guy's seminar. JuJube 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with deletion proposal. My argument is that if you take the same position w.r.t. similar articles, you have to delete half of the entire content of Wikipedia. One example: Turtle F2F. This is very original research. This is an invention of a single person supported by the university. No one has acknowledged this concept yet. The software was never released. And that has gained no traction whatsoever in the world outside of that university. If you need more examples I can spend some time and provide you with lots of them. What's your counterargument? van Groningen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.59.233.82 (talk • contribs)

Delete as POV, Crystal balling, and OR. Nardman1 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly original researh, but also fails to provide reliable sources, and none are findable through googling. -- Whpq 22:41, 7 February 2007 (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.