Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pay By Touch

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 no consensus. Majorly (hot!) 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pay By Touch

Vanispamcruftisement. The user who created this has littered us with other COI articles, so I don't care how many employees this company has. Note: I can't prove his COI in this case, but I strongly suspect it. YechielMan 04:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the proof is here. Ohconfucius 04:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason to think notable. Touch sensitive kiosks are not a new invention. DGG 05:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to be notable either for their technology or as a business. Lankiveil 11:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I added some references. This technology differs from touch-sensitive kiosks because it reads a fingerprint (strictly speaking, the finger itself) reliably enough to allow the scan to substitute for a signature or PIN in authorizing a purchase. This seems like a notable instance of the use of biometrics technology. --Eastmain 14:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Struck me as Spam --St.daniel 15:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This technology is very unique and innovative. Pay By Touch is the only company offering tokenless biometric financial transactions and loyalty and holds more than 50 patents on the technology. It does not deal with touch sensitive kiosks, but rather the biometric authentication of a user in-lane, at a kiosk, online, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billtownsend (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete If we want an article for this, it should be about the machines themselves. This reads like an ad. Dragosian 05:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article covering the technology biometrics, while it in itself needs substantial improvement, exists. Pay By Touch !WP:N since the technology isn't yet widely in use or immediately relevant. They could easily have gone the way of Vonage by the time we're all getting our microchips implanted.

Wysdom 06:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge (provisional) Per results of dialog w/SmokeyJoe (below)--in summary: merge into biometrics as content for a section on "Commercial applications" or something of that nature; no marketing language (POV), this is to be about the technology; no links to Pay By Touch's website (unless there is content !=press release/sales collateral, i.e. strictly supporting some understanding of the technology itself). Best Regards, Wysdom 07:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM Ohconfucius 04:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per Eastmain. Is sufficiently referenced. SmokeyJoe 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to biometrics. Sources are not sufficiently independent of the subject. SmokeyJoe 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Referenced? The single (in my mind) legitimate reference is the little news-cast blurb--which hinges more on the technology than the company. The second reference is a two-line come-on from a research company that wants you to buy a report about how how Pay By Touch bought another company. Companies buy other companies all the time--it doesn't make them notable. If that were the case, I could write a Wiki article about the architect firm I share office space with--they just bought someone. It's unremarkable. The other two references are press releases hosted at affiliates of Pay by Touch--actually, they're the SAME press release [1] just ever so slightly re-worded in the second version. These aren't references--they're advertising. I'm not saying that was Eastmain's intention at all--they look legit at first blush, and I'm willing to bet a lot of well-intentioned researchers have mistaken a press release for a legitimate news item... but they're not. These were written by Pay By Touch... and I'm willing to bet dimes to donuts that a critical evaluation of any other 'articles' found out there on the 'net will have their source in the Pay By Touch Press Release Archive. Wysdom 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Comment Referenced? The single (in my mind) legitimate reference is the little news-cast blurb--which hinges more on the technology than the company. Ref 1. "Channel 3's Paul Thomas shows us how this unique process works" Independent source asserts notability.
- The second reference is a two-line come-on from a research company that wants you to buy a report about how how Pay By Touch bought another company. Companies buy other companies all the time--it doesn't make them notable. Ref 2. "Pay by Touch plans to acquire chief rival BioPay for $82M in cash and stock to become the largest provider of biometric technology for retailers" Source is independent, asserts notability.
  - I submit that a commercially offered report such as the once cited does not assert the notability of Pay By Touch but of the biometrics industry, in which investors and competitors are willing to pony up money for information about what companies/competitors are doing. This is not an independently-written/researched article in a newspaper or magazine--not that all sources need to be, but I would, personally, find such a source far more compelling. It could, of course, be argued that the research company's reason for offering this information=they believe there are people who want it=notability. Again, I think any/all biometrics compan(y/ies) is/are 'notable' in that sense... but not notable enough for their own article on Wikipedia. Perhaps, if someone were willing to expand further on Pay By Touch's product, it could be included as a "Retail Applications" subsection of the biometrics article? Wysdom 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were the case, I could write a Wiki article about the architect firm I share office space with--they just bought someone. It's unremarkable.
  - Reasoning by analogy is not logically valid.
    - Conceded. Wysdom 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The other two references are press releases hosted at affiliates of Pay by Touch--actually, they're the SAME press release [1] just ever so slightly re-worded in the second version. These aren't references--they're advertising. Ref 3. "Pay By Touch is an innovative payment service." Ref 4. "This is the first UK implementation by Pay By Touch, the global leader in biometric authentication, personalised rewards, membership and payment solutions."
  - Can you verify your assertion of advertising? The sources don’t look like advertisements to me. The fact that they reproduce from a press release just proves that the press release was notable.
    - Press releases are advertising--or more accurately, "public releations"--inherently biased, despite being deceptively journalistic in style. They're written by (or for, when a PR agency writes them) companies/organizations about themselves or, somewhat less often, to assert a POV beneficial to them. In essence, they're autobiographical--how can they be considered reliable sources?
    - The purpose of a press release is to get the company in the press, as such exposure generates name/brand recognition. They assert the importance of the "author" by announcing charitable donations/works, revenues, product launches, etc. If you don't know the source, it looks like journalism--but since the source isn't independent, the facts aren't checked, and the author gets to sneak in marketing buzz like "innovative" and "global leader"... it's very much not journalism. Even if a respected, independent news organization chooses to reprint it (which in this case they have not).
    - I wouldn't have immediately pegged these for PR myself if the first source given [2] hadn't left the tell-tale "bio" appended to the bottom. "About Pay By Touch: Pay By Touch is the global leader of biometric authentication, personalised rewards and payment solutions..." etc. It's a press release signature. And then there's who you're to contact for more information--Caroline Powell at jd marketing.
    - And, finally, the first reference, Midcounties Cooperative, is the self-referenced site of the "first UK implementation"--they're Pay By Touch's client. Even if their primary source weren't a press release written by a marketing company, doesn't a business relationship between the source and the subject represent COI?
    - Based on this, and the fact that the second reference is a gently-edited mirror of the first, I submit that both references are invalid--and the assertion that the press release of a commercial cooperative promoting their business partner (and themselves for offering the Pay By Touch service) proves Pay By Touch 'notable', equally so. Respectfully, Wysdom 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe you are right. If the sources are not independent of the subject, then they are not sufficient. If so, I still would not want to delete, I would still like to see the material in wikipedia. I agree with the comments that the article would be better focused more on the product than the company, but that it an editing issue. Would a merge be acceptable? SmokeyJoe 05:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I was sort of leaning that way myself, but since you asked so nicely... ;D I'd like to see it merged into the biometrics article, which desperately needs some sourced, relevant content addressing applications other than immigration/security--provided the content is revised to sustantially illustrate the use of biometrics in commerce and steers clear of marketing language touting Pay By Touch, the company. It would be relevant, I think, to mention Pay By Touch as a major player in this segment of the biometrics market, but that would need to be balanced (if included) with mention of at least a couple competitive companies and their offerings. And links to the main Pay By Touch website--I think we can all agree that they're not an acceptable reference/source for citation. Wysdom 08:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I think the notability test is useful. The article is very well referenced to secondary sources. SmokeyJoe 01:54, 19 April 2007 (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.