Deletion of Adyen

Comment: A "unicorn startup" could (possibly) be notable, but the promotional intent here is quite clear. The copy is 100% advertorial and such content is excluded per . In the present case, without article improvements in the course of this AfD, my vote is for deletion. No objection to recreation if a non-affiliated editor wants to take a stab at it. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. The article is about a company engaged in merchant services (non consumer), so it's not likely that Wiki readers are dying to learn about this company
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSPAM)

Comment: per HighKing's excellent analysis of the sourcing, which I concur in, but I'll add additional reasons: the interview based sources are ''primary'' sourcing, which does not count towards the requirements of , also, this is actually one of the worst non-G11 eligible spam articles I've seen. It might as well be a case statement they provide to investors or a brochure for clients. It is excluded by OTSPAM from inclusion in Wikipedia (see , which means that even if it did meet the general notability guideline, it would not pass . In this case, it both fails the GNG and is spam
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTSPAM||WP:DEL4||WP:N)

Comment: u|Cunard}} this type of post is becoming a problem for two reasons. The first is that the format and length of the post is totally unnecessary. You can post links without extracting quotations which significantly increases the length of the post. The second is you can increase the quality of the links you suggest by reading  and  and *not* posting links to obvious company announcements, press releases, interviews, etc. Of the links you've posted above, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/12/adyen-2016-revenue-profit.html the CNBC article is an interview and fails  and/or . The https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2016/01/20/meet-adyen-the-little-known-unicorn-collecting-cash-for-nextflix-uber-spotify-and-facebook/#3184ef52d26c Forbes reference is the same - an interview with the CEO. The https://www.recode.net/2016/1/14/11588790/adyen-is-the-2-billion-payments-startup-youve-never-heard-of-unless recode article relies on a company announcement and quotations from the CEO. The http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/08/biz-break-will-paypals-growth-plans-include-buying-netherlands-adyen/ mercury news article is a mention-in-passing and is not "substantial" coverage as the article is mainly about PayPal. The http://fortune.com/2014/12/16/payment-unicorn-adyen-raises-250-million-at-huge-valuation/ fortune reference is based on a Press Release and quotations from the company. The http://archive.is/SVrPk Financial Times article is based on a Press Release and quotations from the CEO. The https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-01/the-company-quietly-handling-your-online-purchases Bloomberg article is based on an interview that took place in their HQ with the CEO. Finally, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/12099393/Payments-start-up-Adyen-doubles-transaction-value-to-break-through-50bn.html Telegraph article is based on an interview with the CEO. In other words, they *all* fail the criteria for establishing notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: meets |GNG and |NCORP. When I read that it is in the https://www.forbes.com/cloud100/#4f13f39e5f94 Forbes Cloud 100, I was doubtful. Yet another company that made it somewhere down some lists. Well -- NO. It is number 5 on Forbes Cloud 100! We have articles on #1 through #26 (except a biography on the founder of #19; #27 we have taken out a few times; a few have warnings that the articles read as ads). It would be really silly to take out the #5. With so many good sources and the company/platform as significant as it is, there is no way this article is going to be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NCORP)