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. Clear consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PayU India[edit]

PayU India (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)

Company without any claim or evidence of notability. Twice nominated for Speedy Deletion, (not sure if it was). Few anon and inactive contributors whose only edits are with this article and others related to it. Dmol (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I were able to find a lot of coverage on fairly big publications, so if anyone could take a look and see if they're viable I'd appreciate it, thanks: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] and so on because I had to stop. There was also plenty of coverage for "PayUbiz." Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per the sources above, enough RS to pass GNG. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 11:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Quick Google search displays articles with PayU India as the subject with several as recent as last week. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and here's the analysis of the listed sources and claims: PR, all of it, because it honestly contains only information clients and investors want to know, which is the company's services, funding and financing, and everything a company wants the public to know about itself. None of that amounts to actual substance, especially if if's handed PR by the company. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- the coverage offered above is all PR or PR-like, for example:

• PayU India has made seven top-level hires from companies including Airtel, Human Factors International and FabFurnish even as it looks to launch products in nonpayment verticals including lending and investments for small and midsize businesses and consumers in the next three months. (link #1 from above)
• ""Striking partnerships is critical to our growth," said Nitin Gupta, CEO, PayU India, adding that ... (Link #2 EconomicTimes)
• "PayU India aims at doubling its payment gateway business in the coming year" (Link #3 Business Insider)
• "PayU India on a hiring spree, ropes in seven top level executives with plans enter new segments" (Link#4 TheTechPortal.com), etc.

The coverage is rather WP:ROUTINE (hiring news and expansion plans) and does not rise to the level of COPRDEPTH. Using such sources would result in an article that would not contain any information that could not be found on the company's website.

The article was created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Paritosh31 with a likely COI. The COI situation is likely to persist as often with articles on up and coming companies looking for customers and investors.

Rather than wasting volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of the article, I advocate deletion until such time that the company would be considered notable based on truly independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with K.e.coffman's analysis of the sources. The coverage is routine and PR (or PR-like, lacking independence), so the available sourcing doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since this has gone on without anyone pointing out the PayUBiz articles: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and [20]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here are some for PayUMoney: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] and [33]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- this is still PR or PR-driven, such as

• A passing mention: "Meanwhile payment gateway service, PayUBiz said they are holding on the money and will only release the money, once the products are dispatched. “As a leading payment solution company, we are cognizant of both our merchants and buyers. (...).” PayUBiz said in a statement.
• Discussion of the company's advertising campaign: "A voice over comes into play explaining the many options for using PayUmoney. The film ends with a super and voice over: PayUmoney. The habit of benefit. Nitin Gupta, CEO and co-founder, PayUmoney, said, “One among a series of campaigns that we wish to unleash, with #FaydeKiAadat we uphold the use of our online payment solution, as a safe, easy and rewarding habit..." Read more at: Campaign India
• A reposted press release: "MUMBAI: Payments company PayUmoney on Wednesday launched a new POS terminal which can allow even the small merchants..." @EconomicTimes http://ecoti.in/c7u7Gb

This is unconvincing. The article was created by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Paritosh31, so there's a potential of on-going COI, so WP:PROMO applies.

Rather than wasting volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of the article, I advocate deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That "passing mention" was a part of a bigger article that mentioned PayU many times, along with the other articles about the controversy in that case... I also just noticed we don't have an article for the global PayU, so this should be moved to just "PayU" in any case. More coverage: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] and some foreign ones: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] and [50]. Number 48 is a report of some sort a glitch with the PayU system. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources are bad, coverage is either in passing or at best reads like a rewritten press release. [[User:K.e.coffman analysis is correct, and other editors seem to confuse Google hits with notability. And User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker, please, think of reliablility. Those articles are simply not reliable journalism, let me repeat: they read like rewritten press releasses. If those outlets were not paid to publish them, their publishing strategy is likely to rewrite such releases. Those are the type of sources that are used primarily by spammers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Didn't trouble myself with Googling the subject. Editors who want to save the article have flooded in much PR pieces here that make a good case of subject's ineligibility to reach the WP:CORPDEPTH standard. Whatsoever I saw, I found 8 out of 10 sources, PR, rest, WP:ROUTINE. Subject at best meets WP:BASIC and make a borderline claim for WP:GNG. To end, if there has to be an article, it should be about PayU and there within PayU India can be covered. Anup [Talk] 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Excellent analysis by K.e.coffman. This is far form satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. The massive number of sources are essentially a smokescreen but closer examination shows many of them are unreliable or essentially primary quotes. This seems to be a non-notable company which receives a bit of coverage through PR. The COI editing is also troubling and I would additionally advocate a delete per WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, to me it seems some voters haven't even bothered to read anything if they think "editors who want to save the article have flooded in much PR pieces". Who else has pointed out articles here other than me? Have you taken a look at what I've voted? And I also pointed out the numerous pieces criticizing the company for their mistakes but I guess no one bothers to read any of that or this... Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem I have with our subject is that "PayU India" should be part of the "PayU" article which we don't have. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meanwhile, PayU brand is owned by Naspers. --Djadjko (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)c[reply]
• Delete as the facts alone this was started despite it being deleted as advertising, it gets restarted as yet again advertisement; this suggests no one actually cares to state and understand why their article was actually deleted. There's simply nothing here that is not PR, let alone actual substance; there's actually even basis for A7 if not for the thin "flagship company" claims. The article contains no actual information whatsoever aside from to state the basic information of the company. I suggest the users use their time to stick with advertisements elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 18 September 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.