MyWorld: But the article appears to be about Lyoness, which already had an article at Lyoness although lead states now myWorld.  (Speedy deletion was contested)  IgelRM ( talk ) 23:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies , Austria ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  Merge content to Lyoness and move that article to this title.  If I'm correctly understanding, Lyoness rebranded in 2017 but its article is horribly outdated now; most of the post-2017 information is in this one.  ~ A412 talk!  06:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as a separate page, as it easily passes general notability but needs to be updated with sources from the other lyoness page (background and history).  扱.  し.  侍.  ( talk ) 13:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We would virtually have to rewrite the entire article based on information from the Lyoness article.  IgelRM ( talk ) 14:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Lyoness and move that article to this title.  Reliable sources do not establish notability for myWorld, the Austrian Ltd independent from that of myWorld, the current iteration of the Lyoness family of scams .  There are some hits in the Austrian joint library system, but they all just go to "investment" "newsletters" in the business of laundering press releases.  GR Kraml ( talk ) 06:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I've added multiple reliable sources from Der Standard , Kleine Zeitung , L'Hebdo , Handelszeitung , etc which provide sufficient and for sure independent description of the MyWorld/Lyoness and thus establish the subject's notability.  -- Moem-Meom ( talk ) 11:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] If Lyoness and MyWorld are related by sources, is a merge into Lyoness feasible?  IgelRM ( talk ) 10:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] not sure, the discussion is on deletion and both topics are notable though share shared past Moem-Meom ( talk ) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] so, I see both pages are eligible for Wikipedia, at least since I've added enough "meat" (reliable sources) to meet the General Notability Guideline.  The discussion is on deletion, and the consensus is that the topic is notable.  Moem-Meom ( talk ) 12:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment.  There was never any doubt that the Lyoness family of scams was notable; what's at issue here is whether we need two separate articles for its two trademarks.  The sources you added to the article are not helpful in this respect.  About a third of them leads to 404s or 410s or otherwise fails verification.  Most of those that superficially work are explicit about the fact that "MyWorld" is just a new CI Lyoness has adopted after its original CI became radioactive.  In addition, the Background section is massively padded with inappropriate WP:INTEXT , and language like "garnered significant attention from notable newspapers" straddles the line between original research and desperation.  What is going on here?  GR Kraml ( talk ) 21:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep German language sources are top and notable with in-depth topic coverage both on MyWorld now and previous history, especially focusing on various journalistic investigation.  -- Loewstisch ( talk ) 13:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with new SIGCOV added recently and a long quite problematic history, the company (which is the biggest cashback service globally as far as I know) easily passes GNG. I also think the distinction and evolution from Lyoness to MyWorld are significant, to justify separate coverage and articles. -- Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 18:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Lyoness to here and then redirect to here - according to the suggestion by A412 above.  The company meets notability but it doesn't make sense to have two separate articles on the same subject matter.  HighKing ++ 11:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Lyoness : this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK .  I'm not sure if the title should stay at myWorld or Lyoness.  There might need to be an RM to determine the common name.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:34, 22 March 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.

Discussion outcome: merge