Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salt Edge Inc.

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. RL0919 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Edge Inc.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I can't find a single mention of this company in an independant reliable source (WP:ORGCRIT). The cited sources are primary sources and press releases. One Moldovan newspaper has briefly mentioned one of their daughter projects, "Fentury".

Article was originally created in May by a paid editor, current author claims not to be paid.

– Thjarkur (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am respecting that you analized the sources, however, I might say with the confedence that I included the viable sources (contrary, there is only one quoted from a magazine). I followed all the other encyclopedia examples such as Divido and others, and also the wikipedia rules such as WP:RS. --Sabrina.ok (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider salting. This article is nowhere near meeting WP:ORGCRITE standards. Most of the sources are either databases, blog posts, or written by affiliates of the company (i.e. not significant coverage in RS). Only two citations come even close to being significant coverage in a reliable source: [1] and [2]. However, the former has no byline, which throws its reliability into doubt, and the latter is still quite short of being significant coverage and appears to be republished from another source without clear attribution (What is LTP?), so its reliability is doubtful as well. And even if these were reliable sources, we'd still be short of WP:ORGCRITE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no RS can be found. Self-promotional article with COI in doubt.--WikiAviator (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced that the current format of the article is highly superior to the previous one. The content of the article neutral, without any promotion and advertisement. I agree that there are few viable sources (by the way, I would like to add some sources however as I see I cannot intervine). As it was said before, I consulted the other articles such as: Center of Financial Technologies, Deal sourcing, Itautec, Hyosung, FEXCO, CogitalGroup, Acorns (company) and many others. I would like to state the quality of the above-mentioned articles, sometimes, is shoddy. Thus, I am requesting to be removed the label to develop this article further, and I wish to be involved in developing of the other articles that have the similar problems. Thanks.--Sabrina.ok (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. Written like an an advertisement. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator's explanation is comprehensive and sound. Per Thjarkur, Rosguill, and Doug Mehus. See also my comments earlier this month at User talk:Athaenara#Salt Edge Inc.* – Athaenara ✉ 19:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Now User talk:Athaenara/Archive 13#Salt Edge Inc.)* – Athaenara ✉ 20:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I start from the idea that the related company is not a recently established. They are people, which are certainly interested to be informed in this regard. From my side, I understand your feedback to this article. I am also an old reader of the encyclopedia, which has led me to participate with possible contributions. Like all of us, those who contribute to the development of the platform, I also respect my time to write something of good quality. As for the sources, I am assuring you that they will be updated in due course. I carefully analyzed the information placed before the article was proposed to be deleted and after. I disagree that it is an advertisement, I respected Wikipedia policies. I would be really interested to understand the existing logic related to the keeping of the articles before created, which however, do not correspond to the Wikipedia rules, and moreover, which clearly have the sense of promotion and publicity, in comparison with the new contributions, which are more qualitative both in providing the information and policies protection, are proposed to be deleted.--Sabrina.ok (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sabrina.ok, Thank you for that thoughtful, reflective, and understanding response. For clarity, your writing is quite good and, in my view, meets WP:NPOV. It's mostly objective, save for maybe the "Awards" category. That's not really in question; it's a question of whether multiple WP:RS (I require at least 3, and preferably, 5) exist to write more than a stub-class article. You might consider writing your article on Everipedia, which takes more of an inclusionist philosophy, or on Fandom. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding, in fact, from the very beginning I keen on doing the text compliant with the WP:NPOV. Regarding the "Awards" chapter, I do not mind to exclude it. However, in the similar articles I found this chapter. As for the WP:RS chapter, which is in fact, the key reason for deleting the article, I emphases that there are two sources that are compliant with WP:RS. Then, I identified more sources that meets that policy. Moreover, it should be considered that this is a developing company and the viable sources will appear for sure. Thanks.--Sabrina.ok (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabrina.ok: I don't think you have to take "Awards" out, that's a side issue not germaine to this AfD. Looking at the as written sourcing, I'm not seeing any independent, reliable sources. There's a few fintech digital publications, which could be blogs—their independence and, crucially, editorial oversight and control has not been established. They're OK for supporting trivial details worthy of including, but not for establishing notability. (As an aside, I also do not consider CNN to be a reliable source, for similar reasons, but I digress.) As well, one other aspect worth noting is even if you can find independent sources to establish notability (WP:Notability/WP:NCORP, which are the key policies to reference here), you also need to consider both WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. Hope this helps. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabrina.ok: Assuming this AfD results in a delete, you may want to consider creating a sub-page of your userpage to draft this article (i.e., User:Sabrina.ok/Draft:Salt Edge Inc.) and copying the text over to that draft wherein you can improve sourcing, assuming it exists, and then submit the article for review through Articles for Creation process, which helps to protect against future AfDs. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2019 (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.