Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital Match

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!} 07:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Match

[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)

Fails WPNCORP, sourcing mainly from techinasia and similar paid publications. BoraVoro (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first reference is from The Straits Times, the newspaper of record in Singapore, and the rest seem fine to me, whether or not they have a paywall. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to it and have read it. All the references to the subject are neither independent nor deep enough. Here is the typical coverage from The Straits Times, a source you mentioned: Mr Pawel Kuznicki, 29, director of P2P platform Capital Match, says: "It's more accurate to say that crowdlending is leveraging on technology to service smaller clients which banks may not be able to. BoraVoro (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "newspaper of record" might be helpful in determining whether a source is reliable, but does nothing to determine whether the content contains in-depth Independent Content and meets NCORP criteria. The "rest" seeming "fine" also doesn't have any bearing on GNG/NCORP criteria - which ones in particular (page/paragraph) contains content that meets the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage completely fails the independence standards set out by NCORP, with sources based around what the company says rather than secondary independent analysis. JoelleJay (talk) 22:33, 29 May 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.