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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Wallet[edit]

Allied Wallet (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)

promo and advertising The Banner talk 22:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - otherwise known as a definitive example on why I dislike corporate articles on Wikipedia. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH in that most of the sources provided are either: self published, press releases or Wikipedia. In this ironic PR example [1] it goes to say how it's been featured in The Sunday Telegraph but doesn't actually link to the article, same for The Guardian [2] and Wired [3]. Searches for the articles in question have yet to show any results, save more examples of the same press release, leading me to think that this may have been done for promotional purposes. Funny ^Pika! 23:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, let me know if Bloomberg Magazine 2012, Wired Magazine (UK) and The Guardian will work to establish notability?

It would have been different when it was independent coverage but in these articles it is clear that Allied Wallet is promoting Allied Wallet. It is not independent and reliable coverage about the company. Sorry. The Banner talk 21:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete FunnyPika's rationale is spot on, but even more, the 'appearance' on In Focus is in one of those sketchy paid 'glowing profile' puff pieces you see during commercial breaks on CNBC and other news channels (and is where it airs, during long commercial breaks on cable networks; the claims of it appearing on "public TV" are complete bunk). Worse, Martin Sheen didn't even narrate that piece, so the claim becomes even more absurd. This is such a PR job of an article it should be used in the future of 'what not to do' when writing a company article; every 'reference' going to PR Newswire links and a needless list of currencies supported to 'stretch' out the article content. Completely fails our policies. Nate • (chatter) 03:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another global provider of ... solutions advertising on Wikipedia. When you see "global" and "solution" misused in the article, it's too early to concern yourself with notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As FunnyPika notes, most of the sources are press releases. – 296.x (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2013 (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.