Draft:Razorpay

• Comment: Currently fails WP:NCORP but less promotional than the previous effort. Majority are references are funding and company growth news and interviews with the founders.that fail aspects of NCORP like WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPTRIV. Most of the information is taken from company websites. It is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I have replaced the prior draft with what I think is a much better sourced and more neutral draft that I had prepared, submitted, then revised based on editor feedback on my Sandbox User:Kinleysoda/sandbox. See COI disclosure on Talk. I have pasted in the banner and comments from the Sandbox (except for a banner directing users to work on this draft space), as per the instructions in these Comments from User: Bobby Cohn. As to the questioning of Forbes and Times of India as reliable sources in one of these comments, Forbes is a generally reliable source unless it is a Forbes contributor. See WP: Forbes. This is a Forbes staff written piece.[1] And The Times of India was found in an Request for Comment to be reliable in some circumstances but unreliable where there are nationalistic concerns. The RfC is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#Times of India RFC. The RfC comment by User: Fowler&fowler was singled out as representative of the consensus as to when it is generally unreliable: “Option 3 [generally unreliable] in any topic with politia (sic) ramifications, such as the numbers of people who may have died in a riot, or the numbers of malnutritioned chidren (sic), because of the newspaper's history of a pro-government bias… [quoting Britannica]: “It is one of India's most influential papers, and its voice has frequently coincided with that of the national government." Here, Wikipedia is looking at notability, so I think the fact that one of India’s most influential paper has taken notice of Razorpay with two company profiles helps establish the case, There’s no pro-government angle relevant to these articles. See [2] and [3]

• Comment: I have sample check a significant number of the references. Each of these was a regurgitated press release, a PR piece , or general churnalism.
  You appear to have made the error that more references create an environment for acceptance. Instead they create a borderline WP:BOMBARD and suspicion of advertising.
  I believe that, in this state, it woudl not stand a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, so am asking you for more wrk.
  Specifically, please remove all PR style references. Consider that a fact, once cited with a good reference, one which passes WP:42 is cited, and discard duplicate references. If you cannot find a reference then discard the fact.
  How do you know a reference is PR? Anything said by the org, or by its staff is PR. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Its going to Afd I suspect. The first two references blocks don't establish notability and fail WP:NCORP. It is still an advert. scope_creep^Talk 17:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Note - There is another version for Razorpay draft at sandbox of User:Kinleysoda (They have declared COI). But sandbox version has fewer information and it would be better to just simply merge this information in the future (I will work with @Kinleysoda in future to complete the merger neutrally - if they are active). However, I have added complete neutral information and more references in this current draft for it to qualify namespace - It still needs some cleanup. Thanks Macrobreed2 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Forbes and The Times of India are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you for your thorough review. I believe I have fixed all of the problems you identified. Everything should now be properly verified with a reliable source. Some of the sources establishing notability are: Times of India, Forbes India, Economic Times, Live Mint, Forbes of India These are leading publications in India and the stories all include in-depth original reporting. As one of India’s largest private companies, there are many dozens of articles written about Razorpay, but I have tried to narrow it down to just some of the most substantial independent reporting.Kinleysoda (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I have added relevant content and sources resolving earlier issues with this article and I believe that the article is now ready to be published in namespace. Best, Macrobreed2 (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The examples you provided and claimed to be "significant" are not very independent (see WP:CHURNALISM) and the significant sources such as your claim to the Wall Street Journal are definitely not "in-depth". While it does verify the claim in the article, the extent of the WSJ piece about the subject is no longer than one sentence. Please seek the advice on WP:THREE and note "Be honest with yourself about how good they are. If they're not good sources, people will figure that out real fast and reject them." See also the relevant advice on WP:Interviews where facts sourced from your business "Profiles" are acceptable to be used or not.
  With that said, the company likely passes NCORP, if not the GNG, due to the breadth of coverage, in spite of their depth.
  But notability is not the only concern at AfC; also V and NPOV. I have noted an instance of where the claim in the draft article is not supported by a WP:RS, and the infobox is absolutely littered with unsourced claims. Products are not mentioned in the article, to say nothing about the financial figures given. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: This company meets the organization notability criteria based on multiple in-depth press profiles from major publishers such as The Wall Street Journal and The Economic Times.Those outside of India might not know India’s major, independent business publications. Some of the prominent editorial publications I have used here with “significant coverage” of Razorpay include Forbes India [4], Mint [5], The Economic Times [6] and Money Control [7]. Please note that I disclosed a conflict of interest on Talk. Kinleysoda (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Article has not changed since it was moved here originally for violating WP:ADMASQ. scope_creep^Talk 08:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Thanks for taking the time for review, I understand what you said and I won't be able to work more on this draft as most references seems PR as clarified by @Timtrent and @Scope creep at this stage, and I have done my best. The draft can stay until some another interested editor finds neutral references. @Kinleysoda tagging you here, if you still wish to work feel free to add proper references (please try to be neutral regardless of your COI). Thanks Macrobreed2 (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Razorpay

Company type	Privately held company
Industry	Fintech Payments Service Provider
Founded	May 2014
Founder	Shashank Kumar Harshil Mathur
Headquarters	Bangalore , India
Services	Payment Services
Subsidiaries	Poshvine
Website	razorpay.com

Razorpay is an India-based financial technology company. The company was founded in 2014 by Harshil Mathur and Shashank Kumar as a digital payment platform for small businesses. By February 2024, Razorpay was valued at about ₹56,800 crore (US$6.6 billion), making it one of India’s 10 largest private companies.

History

Razorpay was founded in 2014 by Shashank Kumar and Harshil Mathur, who became friends while studying at IIT Roorkee. After graduating, Mathur took a position at Microsoft while Kumar took one at the Mumbai office of Schlumberger. In 2014, they decided to start a digital payments business in India and created Razorpay.

As of 2021, Razorpay had expanded into online-only banking with a neobanking platform called RazorpayX.

In 2022, Razorpay acquired the customer rewards and loyalty platform Poshvine .

During the 2023 collapse of Silicon Valley Bank Razorpay helped Indian startups move their money out of the collapsing institution and into Indian banks.

In February 2024, the company processed $150 billion in digital transactions for fiscal year 2024.

As of February 2024, the company was valued at about ₹56,800 crore (US$6.6 billion), making it one of India’s 10 largest private companies.