Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerchantpay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 --JForget 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emerchantpay

Emerchantpay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This name or variants of this name (e.g. Emerchantpay) have gone through at least two CSD#G11 deletions over the past week, and despite being briefly blocked for spamming, the author continues to recreate. Let's get a consensus. Appears to be totally non-notable corp. Jaysweet (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Do Not Delete 'ITransact' article or 'PSBill' are the same like Emerchantpay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiberlain (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there ! I would like to know why you put Emerchantpay at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerchantpay. EmerchantPay is a EU based payment gateway and merchant account provider with business and support units located all over the world. I do believe the current article meets the requirements, article contains just facts, NOT an advertisement. there's a reference and press release on the bottom . thank you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiberlain (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 March 2008
  • Comment ITransact is very notable because they were the first company to offer a service of that type. The PSBill article is problematic and may have notability problems too, but please read WP:OSE. Just because another article (inappropriately) exists doesn't mean this one should. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Update: Upon further review, I also nominated the PSBill article for deletion. Heh, thanks Kiberlain, good call! :) ITransact appears to be legitimately notable, though, so I have no intentions of nominating it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Spam. Article lists primary sources (company website and press releases) only. G-search shows only commercial directories/placement. Nothing to indicate the company has any WP:Notability. Toddst1 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, yet another web-based business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP, lacking secondary sources. KnightLago (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes, fails WP:N. If it's been through 2 other deletions already, we should consider salting as well.--Pmedema (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and, yes, WP:SALT. No attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as par aboveCoffeepusher (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. Gillyweed (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep References added Kiberlain (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


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.