Allied Wallet ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Overwhelming consensus to delete. Not a single person, over two AfDs arguing to keep the page in mainspace. Even if you discount the editors who were allegedly canvased there is still a consensus to delete. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to Delete, if there was an issue with consensus, the closing administrator should have relisted the discussion and/or tagged it for further review. This was a clear delete. Nakon 04:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep article. I've removed the puffery. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This is a review of the deletion decision and as such we are discussing whether to overturn or endorse it. We are not discussing the article (not directly at least). Stifle ( talk) 08:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, delete, and trout. Decision was not one to which any reasonable administrator could have come. Even taking account of the canvassing — only one person who was "pinged" actually turned up and contributed. Stifle ( talk) 08:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The rewritten article now clearly meets standards. It would be a little silly to now delete it. Had the discussion been properly closed in the first place, the article would have been deleted, and then recreated as the new good version. That should be the status quo now — how we implement it is broadly irrelevant as long as it's sensible. I would suggest annotating the AFD to show that (a) the community disapproved of the closure, but (b) a better article now being in place, it would be inappropriate to take further action. Stifle ( talk) 07:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete - everyone argued delete, a non-delete can only be construed as a super!vote. Though actually userfy to the person who requested it, since that doesn't require a discussion. Wily D 11:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I would, of course, have no objection to userfying to Cunard, and letting them move it to the mainspace when they feel it's ready. Wily D 16:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete notifying everyone who commented in a previous AfD that there was a renomination ongoing isn't necessarily inappropriate, and certainly isn't justification for closing an AfD with the opposite outcome to the one everybody wanted. Hut 8.5 18:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Relist to discuss the sources I have found:
  1. Adams, John (2013-11-21). "Allied Is Building Biometrics for Mobile Wallets". PaymentsSource. SourceMedia. Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23.

     The abstract at http://www.paymentssource.com/eletter/profile/3/18218.html ^WebCite says:

     Allied Wallet is developing new payment technology that allows users to identify themselves by using an add-on fingerprint sensor, and also plans to build biometric acceptance for merchants.

     When the technology is deployed early next year, consumers will have the option to register their fingerprint as a way to verify transactions made via the Allied mobile app.

     "You verify the payment with your fingerprint and then choose the card you would like to use to pay the amount on the bill," says Andy Khawaja, CEO of Allied Wallet, which has 88 million users globally and is available in more than 250 countries and more than 50 currencies.

  2. Sikimic, Simona (2013-04-19). "Meet the eccentric behind multi-billion-dollar e-commerce giant Allied Wallet". LondonlovesBusiness. Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23.

     The article notes:

     Bearing in mind his e-commerce company Allied Wallet is expecting to transact $55bn (£36bn) in 2013, you soon realise why the American takes his work so seriously – for Khawaja, every day is at least another million.

     Allied Wallet provides a secure online payment system (similar to PayPal), as well as peer-to-peer transfers and smartphone card payments.

     Thanks to the unstoppable onslaught of e-commerce, Khawaja says his company grew by a jaw-dropping 6,000% in 2012 (though he won’t be drawn on profit). The numbers are hard to verify, but aren’t outright impossible.

     http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/about-us/ ^WebCite notes:

     LondonlovesBusiness.com launched on 5 September 2011. It is the second title from Casis Media, co-founded by Graham Sherren (the mastermind behind Centaur Media and all of its great titles) and Mike Bokaie (founder of Caspian Media and creator of Real Business and Real Deals Magazines).

  3. "Who Really Benefits From Job Perks?". CBS. 2015-01-05. Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23.

     The article notes:

     The Valley Village resident recently started working at Allied Wallet, an e-commerce services company ranked among Fortune Magazine’s “10 Great Workplaces For Millenials.”

     “A lot of the perks just surpass everything I could imagine: Friday lunches, weekly massages, a $50 stipend in the cafe downstairs. It’s really incredible,” Cosper said.

     ...

     But Allied Wallet’s management disagrees. They say the perks are just that – perks.

     Last year, Allied Wallet’s owner recognized Diab as Employee of the Year and surprised him with a brand-new Mercedes-Benz convertible.

     ...

     Allied Wallet plans to nearly double its Los Angeles staff in the development, marketing and tech areas within the next six months. The starting salary is around six figures.

  4. Martindale, Nick (Summer 2014). "No pay, no gain: How Allied Wallet founder Andy Khawaja fought to build up his online payments empire". New Business. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23.

     From http://www.newbusiness.co.uk/profile ^WebCite:

     New Business provides independent advice and guidance to directors and owners of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in the UK through this website, the quarterly publication New Business Magazine, and the free weekly e-newsletter.

     ...

     New Business magazine is a 68-page full colour magazine of the highest quality and provides in-depth reports and reviews on all key areas of business including finance, accounting, business planning, marketing and technology. It also features exclusive interviews with leading officials and entrepreneurs such as Sir Alan Sugar, Sir Rocco Forte, Duncan Bannatyne, Ivan Massow, Jacqueline Gold, Terence Conran, James Dyson, Mark Dixon, Charles Dunstone and others. We work with Government bodies, Regional Authorities and leading experts and associations including the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Chartered Institute Of Marketing,the British Chamber of Commerce, and the UKTI. The magazine is also distributed to the British and City Libraries in London and also City libraries throughout the UK. A selection of articles from each issue is included in the magazine archive on the website.

  5. "Payment processors forfeit $13.3 million to settle U.S. case". Casino Journal. 2010-09-01. Retrieved 2015-04-23 – via HighBeam Research. {{ cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= ( help)

     The article notes:

     Online payment processors Allied Wallet and Allied Systems and their owner, Ahmad Khawaja, have agreed to forfeit US$13.3 million to the U.S. Justice Department to resolve claims that the funds were involved in illegal gambling.

     The agreement was reached in federal court in Manhattan, according to news reports.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Allied Wallet to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 00:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete- I get the argument about wanting to discourage canvassing, but it does not seem to me that canvassing really affected the discussion. There was a proper consensus established. Allow recreation if Cunard thinks there are sufficient sources, but I am skeptical that a bunch of run-ofthe-mill advertising churn will be sufficient. And really, stop taking up so much room with your replies. There is no need to hog so much screen real estate that it pushes everyone else's comments off the top of the screen. Reyk _YO! 07:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• I can see why Spartaz didn't delete it, and it's right that we give our sysops wide latitude to deal with canvassing, so let's not trout him! The gentle fishy caress should go to User:Boleyn whose apparently well-intentioned, but not well-advised, actions caused the problem in the first place. But, I'll join the chorus of overturn to delete. Unanimous !vote was unanimous. I can't see whether the article was userfied to User:ThaddeusB in accordance with his request. If not, allow userfication to him or to User:Cunard, both of whom can be trusted to improve it and restore it to mainspace when they feel it's ready.— S Marshall T/ C 11:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  The article was kept, so yah it was not userified. I will reiterate my perfectly reasonable request to userify/draft, although I am perfectly fine with it going to Cunard's space if that is preferred. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, Draftify, and Trout closing admin. The correct course of action when you feel all the !votes are without merit is to add your own explaining why. Not to super-vote. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 01:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC). reply
• Relist. w/ no trouts for anyone. Only 2 of the participants notified, voted delete. The rest didn't respond. WP:CANVASSING allows for notifying editors that expressed interest in the AfD. ("Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)") It could not have been done more transparently, Boleyn's notifications to them were neutral, and there don't seem to be any users known that were in favor of 'keep' at the first afd. Boleyn was also uninvolved in both discussions his sole edit was to the second discussion to notify previously-involved users. At the time of this edit, he also added the CoI tag to the article. [1] The creator of the page, Online credit card processor, did not participate in either AfD and has not made a single edit since the few hours he spent creating the article last September. The article may have its issues, but the AfD had not been relisted once yet. No issue with Spartaz's other closes that I've come across, but I think it was a mistake to close this as no consensus without a re-listing. ―  Padenton| ✉   05:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse or relist, perfectly reasonable closure assuming research was done. Cunard's sources suggest the subject is notable and passes our GNG and RS guidelines. As per WP:PRESERVE the tone is sufficiently neutral, no OR exists, so I would be in favor or retaining. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 12:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete (I never thought I would be !voting to delete something where Spartaz had said keep or no-consensus--it has always been the other way round!! But the entire rationale and objection is fundamentally incorrect. The people involved in an article previously should always be notified, no matter what they have said previously, just as the creator should always be notified, though the creator will almost always want their work kept. In any case the people saying Delete and the afd are regular editors here, and 2 of them had not been pinged. The above sources are inadequate for notability-- nos. 1, 2, 4 are press releases, no.3 is irrelevant to notability, no.6 is a minor negative matter. If there are good sources, and from the size of the company it is possible, some uninvolved editor should start over. COI editing like this should not remain in the history. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete, and trout - See WP:CANVASSING: it allows pinging of previous !voters in discussions. Boleyn's notification was neutral, disinterested, done with no involvement, pinged all editors involved in the last discussion and acceptable. The no consensus close was a supervote, at least relist it if the current consensus may be compromised. Also see User:Boleyn#Pinging during AFDs.....: the closer should have been more careful in claiming that he/she was only pinging the delete voters. Esquivalience ^t 02:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment' I think you have to look at the context of the close where I had closed a lot of AFDs over a couple of days and encountered a number of AFDs where a couple of editors misused the ping system to canvass likely delete voters. If I ignore that I'm condoning canvass and will get ripped a new one when the deletion gets brought to DRV. If I try to be consistent to send a clear message to stop the misuse I'm apparently unreasonable and supervoting and in need of a trout. If I try to exercise some commonsense I'm then not being consistent and just look like some capricious jerk rather then trying to preserve the integrity of our consensus system. So basically whatever I did here I'm wrong by someone. Well I'm sorry but AFD is tettering on the edge because of limited participation and the last thing we want is to undermine what limited credibility the system has by condoning even the appearance of canvassing, so go ahead and blame me for trying to consistent and using my best judgement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Spartaz you've written above that it was a situation where a couple of editors misused the ping system to canvass likely delete voters. I thought from your messages to my Talk pagethat you understand that I had not tried to canvass likely delete voters? I can't think that your comment doesn't respond to me. As per others pointing out that canvass accepts pinging, in a disinterested way, those who have participated in previous discussions I will continue to do so. In my opinion, it can help solve the lack of participation in AfDs to let those who have been involved in the article know what's going on. However, that's essentially a discussion for elsewhere; if you think the policy at CANVASS should be changed, you can start a discussion elsewhere about that. Boleyn ( talk) 06:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Wily, S Marshall, ThaddeusB, DGG, I generally disagree with Spartaz, and agree with the other four, however I feel that in this case Cunard has brought sources which show the subject has been significantly covered in RS and passes GNG. It seems inefficient to delete the article based on policy only for it to be restored immediately. I do not know if Spartaz was lucky in this close or if he was able to find sources and make a determination the discussion was slightly skewed, if anything should be a sign that more discussion is required. It seems apparent to me at this time that if this subject went through another AfD it would be NC at worst. In terms of closing rules I do agree it should be deleted, but it doesn't have to be that way. Rarely does any admin make a supervote in favor of retaining information, let alone coming frm Spartaz, but it is a breathe of fresh air and new sources provided would suggest a relist is more senseable, am I correct? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The discussion obviously needed to be closed as delete. That subsequently we discovered a new article could be created (using the old one as a basis, or not) is a separate question. I suggested userfication because it's generally easier - no (real) timeline, only hardcore nutters complaining the copy is still around until it's fixed up, and so on. That Cunard has chosen to do the rewrite in the mainspace ain't the choice I'd have made, but obviously I don't give a shit. That said, the tendency at DRV to say "This outcome is obviously wrong, but since it's not necessary to correct it, let's not" is not one I can endorse. So long as we're discussing the close, let's get it right. Wily D 08:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• I have rewritten the article. According to the sources, the company has 88 million customers in over 250 countries, processes over 50 currencies, and was projected to have transacted $55 billion (£36 billion) in 2013. Based on the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, it is clear the company is notable.

  Cunard ( talk) 23:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete and trout for a bad close from a user who really should have known better. On the other hand, canvassing whether for deletes or keeps rarely if ever does the discussion any favours, and tends to devolve into accusations and general shittiness. I've seen entire AFD debates go completely off the rails when someone decides to canvass someone or other. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist Per Valoem. The article has been significantly changed from the original form, and new sources added that may need reviewing. An alternative path that reaches the same outcome is also ok (delete and then restore, if I understood what Wily said), if it is cleaner. Caroliano ( talk) 17:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Toradex ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The was no consensus to keep. Afd is not a vote. It's meant to be decided on the strength of policy based arguments, not on a head count or a willingness to lie about sources. All the keep opinions were very weak or straight out lies. Davey2010 - "meh keep". VMS Mosaic - WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Sunil - WP:OTHERSTUFF and a lie about independent reliable sources. Jonathan - a meaningless comment about good reference/content ratio. Sunil then goes on to lie again about sources. No one who said there was coverage in independent reliable sources was able to identify any truthfully. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment, endorse as AFD closer. At best, this would be a no-consensus close. There is clearly no consensus to delete. Nakon 04:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment 'I don't think they are notable, but the simplest thing would be to renominate for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - In all honestly I'd of preferred a second relisting as the keeps (inc mine!) weren't all that but I think it would've gained more weak keeps than anything, IMHO the easiest thing to do would've been to renominate in a months time which you can still do if nothing happens with this. – Davey2010 ^Talk 07:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No reasonable administrator could have come to a delete conclusion, and as I have repeatedly opined DRV isn't concerned with flipping between the various versions of not-delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus - or relist - there's exactly one source that can be invoked here to maybe justify claims this meets WP:N; the Gizmag one [2]. Even there, I'm not convinced (and I might be the biggest softy around on such things) - absent that source, I'd have honoured an A7 request. The case for or against that source isn't made convincingly enough in the discussion, though, to quite close based on a conclusion about it. There is a material difference in NC and Keep on the appropriateness of an immediately 3rd AfD - and so long as we're here, being lazy is a bad reason to endorse an obviously wrong outcome. Wily D 11:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: based on that discussion a "delete" outcome would not have been within discretion. If the sources are bad, renominate it after a reasonable period.— S Marshall T/ C 11:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - reasonable close based on discussion. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse couldn't possibly have been closed as delete given the discussion. Can't hurt to give it a few months, see if it gets better (or worse) and renominate if appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply