Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagaya Technologies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) Svartner (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Pagaya Technologies
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Pagaya Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination. This article was recently translated from German Wikipedia. It was nominated for G11 by another editor. I deleted the page based on sources provided. In retrospect, it would have been better if I'd retagged as A7. Yes, it's a publicly traded company. No, none of the sources directly detail the company. They detail funding, relocation, and other routine business news coverage which would apply to any other business. For my part, I skipped missed the request to restore by the translator this morning. If I had it to do over again, I'd have declined the speedy and then procedurally nominated the page as failing direct detailing. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- "Not sure", but it does read rather promotionally. There seem to be a few problems and criticisms that have been omitted from the article, e.g. Deb (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Different wikis have different rules for notability. I assume good faith that the page is faithfully translated; I'm not satisfied the high burden for NCORP is met. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- The company was covered by the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/finance/the-ai-middleman-expanding-in-the-consumer-bond-bonanza-fe16db74) and also in the Israeli press. This should be enough for NCORP.--Afus199620 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- "Company issues first bond" is not information directly detailing the company, regardless of where it's documented. It's routine business news, like everything else on the page. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Wrong. There are also analytical references with more than routine business news. If a NYSE-listed company with a billion dollars in revenue and 30 billion in brokered loan volume, covered in the WSJ and analyzed in fintech publications, does not meet the NCORP threshold, the bar is clearly set too high. --Afus199620 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- "Company issues first bond" is not information directly detailing the company, regardless of where it's documented. It's routine business news, like everything else on the page. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- The company was covered by the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/finance/the-ai-middleman-expanding-in-the-consumer-bond-bonanza-fe16db74) and also in the Israeli press. This should be enough for NCORP.--Afus199620 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Different wikis have different rules for notability. I assume good faith that the page is faithfully translated; I'm not satisfied the high burden for NCORP is met. BusterD (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- "Not sure", but it does read rather promotionally. There seem to be a few problems and criticisms that have been omitted from the article, e.g. Deb (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and New York. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. There is a multitude of analytical non-routine coverage from WSJ (linked above but I found two more articles on a quick google search), Bloomberg () and Financial Times (see ). There's more critical coverage here in "Banking on a Revolution: Why Financial Technology Won't Save a Broken System" by Terri Friedline, an associate professor at the University of Michigan that seems to focus her research on fintech for several pages and would serve as a great way to counter the promotional tone of the current article. Katzrockso (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Friedline is quite appropriate, and (unlike anything else previously applied) objectively examines the company's business model in a scholarly work from a respected imprint. When I performed my reasonable BEFORE, I was unimpressed with what I found. I'm also appreciative Afus199620 has made an effort to add more citation. Just a reminder, I called this formal discussion NOT because I was advocating delete. Based on my reading, the speedy tagger made a reasonable case this writing seemed unduly promotional (vs. sources). I am called upon to delete a fair number of G11 articles. Wikipedia is not a mere listing of fintech firms. Others have pointed out the prose. For my part, I have no dog in this hunt. I was happy to restore the page on DRV request, which I would have done in response to Afus199620's initial talk page request if they'd waited until I next logged in. Given the DRV, this subject deserves a broader community discussion. BusterD (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize if my comment came across as abrasive, I know this AfD was procedural - I saw the DRV after it had already closed. I didn't mean to express any personal animus towards you, the original deletion or this procedural nomination. Katzrockso (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- No reason for anyone here to apologize. Everybody is doing in good faith what they logged on to do. The somewhat adversarial tone in XfD is an integral part of the process; if we're going to disagree, let's do so BOLDly, on the merits. Your provided sources are perfectly relevant and I thank you for locating "Banking on a Revolution," exactly the sort of analysis this page has been missing. The thrust of the page to date has been that the subject has zero negatives (which came across from the German language translation), but IMHO Friedline's section on the company makes an essential point that business models have consequences. BusterD (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize if my comment came across as abrasive, I know this AfD was procedural - I saw the DRV after it had already closed. I didn't mean to express any personal animus towards you, the original deletion or this procedural nomination. Katzrockso (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Friedline is quite appropriate, and (unlike anything else previously applied) objectively examines the company's business model in a scholarly work from a respected imprint. When I performed my reasonable BEFORE, I was unimpressed with what I found. I'm also appreciative Afus199620 has made an effort to add more citation. Just a reminder, I called this formal discussion NOT because I was advocating delete. Based on my reading, the speedy tagger made a reasonable case this writing seemed unduly promotional (vs. sources). I am called upon to delete a fair number of G11 articles. Wikipedia is not a mere listing of fintech firms. Others have pointed out the prose. For my part, I have no dog in this hunt. I was happy to restore the page on DRV request, which I would have done in response to Afus199620's initial talk page request if they'd waited until I next logged in. Given the DRV, this subject deserves a broader community discussion. BusterD (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC) - Complete waste of time. NCORP was proven without a doubt.--Afus199620 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The materials identified by Katzrockso prove WP:ORGCRIT is met.4meter4 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- Keep On top of the Bloomberg and Google Books sources provided by Katzrockso, Reuters reported on Pagaya's legal filing against a law firm that had represented it in the past. The Times of Israel reported on its hiring of Arab Isralies. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- 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.