Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA Technologies Inc.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USA Technologies Inc.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advert with too little salvageable content to be worth cleaning upCorporate 14:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article definitively needs cleaned up to improve the tone and remove advert like content and primary sources. However, that is not a reason to delete. The company seems to meet notability criteria for companies, they are publicly traded [1] and a quick search of google news shows plenty of articles from reliable sources that could be used as references. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is in need of cleanup and improvement. However that is not a valid reason for deletion, please see WP:NOTCLEANUP. This company is traded on NASDAQ. That alone is not a reason to keep (see WP:LISTED), but it's a very good reason to do a WP:BEFORE search before nominating for deletion. Company passes WP:CORP. A few examples of significant coverage:

I do note that some of the controversial events about this company are not currently in the article, and probably should be. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 21:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll stipulate to this being poorly written, but the subject itself is notable and I agree that WP:NOTCLEANUP applies, needing cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. Go Phightins! 22:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some adjustments in hopes of improving the tone. Go Phightins! 22:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company has been covered by the New York Times, CNN, and Fox News. The coverage isn't always flattering, but it's there. The current article is written in a promotional tone, but that can be fixed with a clean up.--xanchester (t) 22:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that this article is written in a promotional tone but the subject is itself is notable, per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of organizations and companies. It seems like the article is an orphan and could probably use a link to cashless catering or the U.S. equivalent. ʈucoxn\^talk 23:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ʈucoxn\^talk 23:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. Cleaned up while I was at it. A412 (Talk • C) 00:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fulfills WP:CORP. Tone/text have been adjusted since nom. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York Times talks about them, and other coverage as well. Dream Focus 07:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Publicly traded on a major exchange. Plenty of good cites as previously mentioned. Faustus37 (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2012 (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.