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. North America1000 01:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adyen[edit]

Adyen (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)

Fails GNG, references are company annoucements or partner announcements or rely on extensive quotations and/or material facts/data/information from PRIMARY sources, references fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing++ 17:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW #27 is Veeam, no activity on WP since 2013 and an excellent subject for an article. I created a redirect for the #19. We do have #28 through #30 and that's enough checking for today. I'll do one more. We do have the #100, Canva! gidonb (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gidonb, I reviewed the coverage of the Forbes Cloud 100 that you provided: I didn't find anything substantial in that article (it was a directory listing followed by a quote from a company executive.) I am open to switching my !vote if you could show the sourcing that you say exists. Cunard's above has already been demonstrated to not meet our guidelines in my book, but if other sourcing exists and the article can be cleaned up to comply with NOTSPAM before the end of the AfD, I'd switch my !vote. Otherwise its just a corporate brochure at this point, and we don't tend to keep those. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • TonyBallioni, above sources are just the tip of the iceberg. This is a silly nomination and a waste of time for the community. gidonb (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • gidonb could you provide the other sourcing? I searched and couldn't find any that weren't near exact duplicates of the sourcing above, which HighKing has accurately analyzed. This is a close call for me because it does seem to have made a significant impact in their field, the question is whether they have been noticed by enough people independently of their promotional efforts. If that could be demonstrated and the article cleaned up to be neutral, I'd be open to switching. Also, if someone does find more sources (and Cunard, I welcome more from you as well), please don't paste them into the AfD: its distracting and makes it more difficult to actually read the discussion and more difficult to find the links to the full sources because they get lost in the text. Just standard links will work. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, Veeam exists as Veeam Software. I'm going to create a redirect. gidonb (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done! I also moved the whole thing further to consensus on the talk page. I'm not going to answer Tony's inquiry at length. These were the outcomes of my invested independent research. Judging by his statements he will be hard to please and I do have more things to do. I'm a big believer in writing and think no good will come out of nominating leading companies for deletion. No good for Wikipedia that is. gidonb (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Passes GNG Elokammanoharam (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Keep : Passes GNG JillyJab (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I work for the company and have been making edits to the page, which I feel now meets GNG. I have removed most descriptions of Adyen's products and have edited the tone to be much more neutral. Using similar companies for reference... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripe_(company) Please let me know what further modifications I can make to keep the page. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessdujour2 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 September 2017 (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.