Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cashfree

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Strong arguments on both sides. The SPA author's multiple source analyses were dismissed as self-serving. And while some of our more experienced editors accepted some sources as establishing notability, I see a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 18:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cashfree

edit

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

Cashfree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Besides the usual PR-announcements, sources are mostly churnalistic in nature, fitting the description at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The article carries a promotional tone and was created by a WP:SPA. Yuvaank (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Silkroadster
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Potentially independent because it is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer Yes WP:THEHINDU Yes WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail ✔ Yes
Yes Potentially independent because it is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer Yes WP:THEHINDU Yes WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail ✔ Yes
Yes Potentially independent because news has a negative connotation and is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer. Yes WP:THEHINDU Yes WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail ✔ Yes
Yes Potentially independent because news has a negative connotation and is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer(s). Yes WP:REUTERS Yes This is not trivial coverage, as the reporters emphasized its significance by contacting the company, though the company did not reply to their request for comment. ✔ Yes
Yes Potentially independent because its a policy paper jointly published by researchers who are, in turn, funded by two government-funded agencies, as mentioned in a reliable column. Yes Policy paper jointly published by Economic and Social Research Council and Indian Council of Social Science Research Yes Significant coverage at following page numbers 32, and 35;  addresses the topic directly and in detail. ✔ Yes
Yes Potentially independent because news has a negative connotation and is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer. Yes WP:THEHINDU Yes WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail ✔ Yes
Yes Potentially independent; the company mentioned in a book chapter which an academician writes Yes Published by a renowned book publisher; Springer Nature Yes WP:SIGCOV; Coverage found at the following page number 108;  addresses the topic. However, please note that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention; it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, as seen in this case. Hence, it is added to Further reading MOS:FURTHER ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Silkroadster (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an accusation or assumption. You have made very few significant edits outside this topic, which effectively makes you a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (SPA). I encourage you to contribute to other pages as well to avoid appearing as an SPA. More importantly, your source analysis is incorrect. Check my assessment of these sources below. Yuvaank (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Yuvaank
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Primarily based on direct quotes and paraphrases from the company's CEO Yes WP:THEHINDU No Fails WP:SIGCOV, lacks independent editorial content, just repeats what the CEO says ✘ No
No Primarily based on direct quotes and paraphrases from the company's CEO Yes WP:THEHINDU No Fails WP:SIGCOV, lacks independent editorial content, just repeats what the CEO says ✘ No
No Primarily based on direct quotes and paraphrases from an unidentified source Yes WP:THEHINDU No WP:ROUTINE announcement with a grand total of just 90 words. ✘ No
No Primarily based on the Enforcement Directorate's statements Yes WP:REUTERS No WP:ROUTINE announcement of regulatory action that does not establish the company's notability. Besides, the company is only barely mentioned in this article. ✘ No
Yes Potentially independent Yes Policy paper jointly published by Economic and Social Research Council and Indian Council of Social Science Research No Potentially passes WP:SIGCOV, I'll let this one slide although the puffery in Page 35 raises some concerns. The text on Page 35 has been copied verbatim from Cashfree's blog. ✘ No
~ Largely based on direct quotes and paraphrases from unidentified sources Yes WP:THEHINDU No WP:ROUTINE announcement of regulatory action that does not establish the company's notability. Besides, the company is only barely mentioned in this article. ✘ No
Yes Independent material Yes Written by two seemingly reliable authors and published by Springer Nature No Fails WP:SIGCOV, Page 108 includes two sentences about regulatory action involving this and another company. No in-depth coverage on this company itself. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
When someone begins editing Wikipedia, they usually work on just one page. Instead of doubting them ASPERSION, it’s better to be more understanding. That said, I have reviewed your source assessment and, to some extent, I agree with you. To overcome it, I have added an another source analysis table. Silkroadster (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although... I am a deletionist, I support keeping this page because the source analysis table meets the SIRS criteria. But, if the page-creating editor is found to be evading a block or anything like that, it could be easily nominated for deletion under G5. I assume this because the page has an alternate history. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has accused the page creator of being a block evader. My nomination is based solely on the quality of the sources used, and I have provided a detailed rebuttal of the source analysis table above. I was also unaware of the previously unsuccessful attempts to create a page for this company at Cashfree Payments, Cashfree, Draft:Cashfree and Draft:Cashfree Payments. Thanks for pointing this out. Yuvaank (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The creator's source assessment depends largely on The Hindu which has a poor reputation for fact checking[1][2]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why HINDU says its' opinion pieces should be handled according to the appropriate guidelines. I have used clear news reports, following the RSP qualification criteria for The Hindu. No source is perfect; their coverage often has some bias. Sometimes they even apologise and retract. For example, check out the List of The New York Times controversies. Despite these controversies, have we ever banned the NYT from being considered a reliable source? You have a strong editing history, and I was hoping for better arguments from you so I can learn as a new editor. Silkroadster (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The links I cited all referred to news articles not opinion pieces so first part of your comment is a strawman, secondly a source that has a history of no fact checking and ripping off random unverified facts from Wikipedia prior to publishing news can not be trusted, especially when the sources you cited were only reiterating the unverified statements made by the company itself. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns about fact-checking and reliability. I have once again reviewed all the Hindu sources mentioned in my analysis. Apart from the company CEO's quotes, there is significant editorial input from the journalists, which should not be overlooked. My reservation is about dismissing an RSP source entirely due to past issues. To support my perspective, I have already provided the example of The New York Times. Okay, let's agree on this... The Hindu is on the RSP list based on a general consensus. If you have concerns about this source, you can raise them at RSN. My humble request is this... please try not to impose your personal judgment here solely based on your feelings. I can sense that you may be upset, so I kindly ask you to take a moment to calm down. I want to assure you that no disrespect is intended toward you. Silkroadster (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    RSP entry is not the final say on the reliability of indian sources, as WP:NEWSORGINDIA tells us to exercise caution when using them. Indian sources should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Also, you should stop referring to the RSP entry, as it does not even discuss their business newspaper, which you have cited. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the first point, I agree with the view on NEWSORGINDIA.
    For the second point, regarding referring the Hindu RSP entries, please check this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#The Hindu. Also, take a look at Tayi Arajakate's comment on Hindu Businessline at this link for more details.
    To make things clearer, if we use the CiteHighlighter tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter. Hindu BusinessLine appears to be acceptable. Silkroadster (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am adding another source analysis table;
Source assessment table prepared by User:Silkroadster
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report. Yes Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients. Yes WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief. ✔ Yes
Yes It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report. Yes Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients. Yes WP:SIGCOV Coverage found at page number 50. ✔ Yes
Yes It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report. Yes Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients. Yes WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief. ✔ Yes
Yes It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report. Yes Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients. Yes WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Silkroadster (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a COI with the company? Your response didn't address that. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking. I just gave my response. My response... here focused on the AFD's key points, but I appreciate you asking for clarification. Silkroadster (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you quote the last two sources or provide their relevant scanned pages? These reports cost thousands of dollars and are inaccessible, we can't take your word for it given that you have tried to misrepresent sources before too. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I could access it, I certainly would have. Since they are mentioned in the context index and some in the introduction brief, I am accepting them. Regarding the cost of the reports, please refer to the PAYWALL guideline, which clearly states: 'Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries.' Regardless, I apologise if we haven’t been able to see eye to eye on this. Secondly, I want to clarify that I haven’t misrepresented any source—it seems you are strongly asserting that a valid RSP source is invalid based solely on your personal opinion. Let’s call it a day. Silkroadster (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should avoid waving these guidelines at experienced users, we are all aware of them. If you do not have access to sources you should not include them in your source assessment. You did misrepresent the source analysis earlier as Yuvaank's counter analysis showed. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I value constructive and guidelines-based discussions and respect everyone’s experience here. But, I think it’s best for me and for this AFD... if I step back from having any conversation with you. I want to re-assure you that no disrespect is intended toward you. Silkroadster (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silkroadster (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their rationale is significantly more convincing than the sources you have presented here.
  • [3] Upon closer examination, I was right in my concerns about the puffery in this source. The so-called intra-governmental report has lifted text verbatim from Cashfree's blog. This source should be discredited altogether.
  • [4] This report has a one-page profile on at least 23 companies in the payments processing industry.
  • [5] The issue is not the reliability of the source. The independence of the content is the concern here (see WP:ORGIND). This article merely repeats the CEO's statements without any original reporting on the part of the staff writer. This source also fails CORPDEPTH by a fair margin.
Yuvaank (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yuvaank Allow me to provide some clear perspective on your rationale;
  • In that intra-governmental report, It was not the report that lifted the text but rather Cashfree, which copied the text verbatim for their blog. In that report, the authors cited a reference for the text Misra, 2023 with a clear statement: Now, this is a simple explanation of how third-party providers (TPP) can access bank servers. This reference can be found in the page number 32 itself and also in the bibliography of the report on page number 45. While copying for their blog, Cashfree omitted the reference Misra 2023.
  • JM Financial's Sectoral Report on Digital Payment; A one-pager includes a lot of analysis from the analyst who wrote the report, who is independent of the subject and has provided a proper disclaimer.
  • In The Hindu, it's an opinion piece. The staff writer used quotes from the CEO and added her own thoughts. The article is behind a paywall which I have access to, so now I am certain you haven’t read the full text; otherwise, you would have more correct interpretation.

Silkroadster (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Cashfree blog was published on 4th December 2023, while the so-called intra-governmental report was published in August 2024. And yet, you are telling us that Cashfree copied from this report. I don't know what else to say, except to point out WP:CIR. The Misra 2023 citation on Page 32 pertains to how TPPs can access bank servers in general; it has nothing to do with Cashfree or the Page 35 puffery on Cashfree's services, which has undoubtedly been copied word-for-word from Cashfree's blog. Unsurprisingly, there is absolutely no mention of Cashfree on the Misra 2023 citation itself.
  • 75% of that one-page profile on Cashfree is about funding, recent news and financials, all of which fall under WP:ROUTINE. Discounting all of that, there is barely 98 words of "analysis" (if you can even call it that).
  • I do have a subscription to The Hindu Business Line and can access all articles on their site. Excellent job on assuming otherwise—that's another point for you on the misrepresentation and misassumption counter. I can provide the full text of this article for you or anyone else to review (just ping me). This article clearly fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH as it relies primarily on the CEO's statements starting from the first paragraph to the last. An article like this is not called an opinion piece either, FWIW.
Yuvaank (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used the Wayback Machine and confirmed that the intra-governmental report was copied from the Cashfree blog. Thank you for pointing this out to everyone! As for the other two, I don't think I can make much progress with you on them. Silkroadster (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Having reviewed various of these reports in the table, I don't think this subject still meets the WP:CORPDEPTH. Additionally, the nominator's rebuttal of these reports above is highly convincing. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To correct my earlier poor review of the intra-governmental report, I am now sharing a better source that clearly explains WP:CORPDEPTH
Source assessment table prepared by User:Silkroadster
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Peer reviewed Journal which is indexed with India's UGC-CARE and follows it norms Yes Academic research article written by academicians Yes WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies covered in the research, and its data is being compared with that of its peers. ✔ Yes
Yes Peer reviewed Journal which is indexed with Ulrich's Periodicals Directory Yes Academic research article written by academician Yes WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies covered in this descriptive research. ✔ Yes
Yes A peer reviewed conference paper presented at 29th International Economic Conference – IECS 2022 in Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania Yes Conference chapter/paper written by academicians. Yes WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies covered in this conference paper at page number 16 and 17. ✔ Yes
Yes It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report. Yes Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients. Yes WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies profiled in this report as mentioned in the brief. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Silkroadster (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cashfree&oldid=1268620852"