Deletion of PayTabs

Comment: Technically it is  that applies, but the Zawya/Reuters and Arab News sources at a minimum look of good quality and sufficient to pass NCORP even without looking too far afield. It it a little promotional (though not wildly so) but certainly has encylopedic worth - I wouldn't say that either  or  applies. Thus promo tones should be dealt with by editing, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:DEL4||WP:G11)

Comment: It is very clear to me that not a single one of the references in the article meet the criteria for establishing notability and fails . By any interpretation, the references fall into the broad categories of run-of-the-mill company profiles e.g. Bloomberg, Forbes (specifically mentioned in the examples of  failures), company announcements (Arabnews, Reuters, etc, fails ) and inclusion into top 10 type lists (fails ). Can any of the Keep !voters above ({{u|Govvy}}, {{u|Nosebagbear}}, {{u|Keyboard Therapy}} and {{u|Bkshots}}) please point out which references they believe meet the criteria for establishing notability and help me understand why the reference does not fail . Be aware that NCORP describes the criteria for references and clarifies that "reliable independent sources" means that the references must be intellectually independent and not rely on company-produced material or interviews/quotations, etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:ORGCRIT||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NCORP)

Comment: Enough there to satisfy  in my opinion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: reply|HighKing}} I wouldn't pick one reference, the way I see it, is, each reference is just a brick in a wall, it's not until you combine them all together for to see the overall outcome. PayTabs certainly are not Microsoft or Apple with assets of billions with technology, I am only just scraping it over for , even know I said keep, it's more a weak keep
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: It has always been this case, just that editors continually confused the interpretation of "independent coverage". It does not mean that the publisher has no corporate link with the topic company, it means that the contents of the published article contains original description/analysis/opinion/etc and not just repeating company produced content. This was clarifed in March and  updated accordingly
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)