Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papara (company)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Papara (company)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a for-profit company that has to meet NCORP to be notable. Note that this guideline sets a higher standard for sources than the regular GNG. The source must have an independent author and independent content. The latter part is the most important difference here. Independent content means: "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject".

Coming to this article specifically, we can see that the sourcing here mostly consists of sponsorship agreements made between the Papara and another party, or sources directly from websites related to the company. While not in the article, other sources include announcements of Papara buying other companies, Papara expanding its services, and even more sponsorship agreements. While all of these are generally published by reliable outlets, they can't be considered as independent content since they rely on "content produced by interested parties" and hence do not count towards notability.

I tried searching for better sources to no avail. There are so much trash sources online that it's almost impossible to pick out good ones. Most book sources are about Papara, French Polynesia. Notable Turkish companies almost always have a journal article on DergiPark (partially) dedicated to themselves, which is not the case here. Nothing worthy of note in TWL either. It appears that Papara is actively throwing money for the recognizability of its name. This practice, however, does not always coincide with our notability guidelines; the lack of independent sources means that the company is not notable for Wikipedia as it fails the subject-specific guideline set for the topic. Styyx (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Turkey. Styyx (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the 1 billion 416 million TL stadium agreement with Trabzonspor [1] and the sponsorship agreement with Beşiktaş [2] are noteworthy on their own. Lionel Cristiano^? 17:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lionel Cristiano, did you by any chance see the nomination statement above regarding sources on sponsorship agreements or did you simply throw in a "too long; didn't read"? Styyx (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is football. Lionel Cristiano^? 05:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Delete’’’ as the organization seems to be not yet notable with sourcing coming mainly from primarily sources. However some good points were mentioned here in the discussion and the notability is not zero. DraculaParrot (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Largely sourced to a blog, and all I can find are PR items or fintech churnalism. This is about the only thing in a RS [3], basically "company makes lots of money". Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing for notability. Bro you are wrong. Papara refunds some of the money with its cashback feature. For example, when I pay Netflix and Spotify every month, I get half of my money back. Or when I buy medicine from the pharmacy, 10% of my money is refunded. 149.140.110.81 (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain in Wikipedia terms. Styyx (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no question that this company's products are important for its customers, but that's not the question. There's no sign this company passes WP:NCORP and/or WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2024 (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.