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.
Cryptocurrency exchange that did not satisfy
corporate notability in February 2022, and was deleted as per
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celsius Network, and is still not notable. An article on this business was restored on 13 June 2022, but what the
reliable sources indicate is that the network ceased operation on 13 June 2022. If a company was not notable when it was in business, then it is not notable when it is out of business – unless its failure has itself satisfied
general notability, which is not the case here.
I worked on a draft about a year ago under a different title. I resubmitted it after all the latest news and updated the title to
Draft: Celsius Network I did not realize that there was a different version that had already been submitted and reviewed. My draft has many more sources. I submitted it again today after the most recent rejection because I added more sources which I thought demonstrated notability. I regret if I've made things difficult for any editors. I think my version is much more extensive and demonstrates the notability of the subject: numerous articles about the subject in mainstream sources over a period of time.
JournalismResearch (
talk)
21:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep — There is sufficient coverage on this subject, largely due to the Bitcoin crash that's occurred due to Celsius Network. The reason why it's notable doesn't matter here; this is a very similar case to
Libs of TikTok, where the article subject's notoriety warranted it a page rather than its preexisting status. And, as far as I know, Celsius isn't out of business, it's just shutting down withdrawals due to "extreme market conditions". New accounts can still be created and money can still be put into it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)21:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - The nominator needs to do some basic news searches and will find that Celsius Network is at the top of the financial and mainstream news as part of a larger cryptocurrency slump. The Reuters headline could not be clearer: "Crypto contagion fears spread after Celsius Network freezes withdrawals."
[1] Add to this Bloomberg, The Verge, Financial Times, Yahoo Finance, Barrons, et al. Suggest closing this early as it is a bad nomination. -
Fuzheado |
Talk23:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep, the lender is top news everywhere, surely notable. Censorship is evil, and the attempt to censor an article from Wikipedia doubly so.
Tiphareth (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
13:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, for now. This would have been a potential delete barely keep before their apparent collapse, but freezing withdrawals has definitely caused additional coverage and notability.
Skynxnex (
talk)
15:10, 14 June 2022 (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.
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.
Cryptocurrency exchange that did not satisfy
corporate notability in February 2022, and was deleted as per
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celsius Network, and is still not notable. An article on this business was restored on 13 June 2022, but what the
reliable sources indicate is that the network ceased operation on 13 June 2022. If a company was not notable when it was in business, then it is not notable when it is out of business – unless its failure has itself satisfied
general notability, which is not the case here.
I worked on a draft about a year ago under a different title. I resubmitted it after all the latest news and updated the title to
Draft: Celsius Network I did not realize that there was a different version that had already been submitted and reviewed. My draft has many more sources. I submitted it again today after the most recent rejection because I added more sources which I thought demonstrated notability. I regret if I've made things difficult for any editors. I think my version is much more extensive and demonstrates the notability of the subject: numerous articles about the subject in mainstream sources over a period of time.
JournalismResearch (
talk)
21:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep — There is sufficient coverage on this subject, largely due to the Bitcoin crash that's occurred due to Celsius Network. The reason why it's notable doesn't matter here; this is a very similar case to
Libs of TikTok, where the article subject's notoriety warranted it a page rather than its preexisting status. And, as far as I know, Celsius isn't out of business, it's just shutting down withdrawals due to "extreme market conditions". New accounts can still be created and money can still be put into it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)21:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep - The nominator needs to do some basic news searches and will find that Celsius Network is at the top of the financial and mainstream news as part of a larger cryptocurrency slump. The Reuters headline could not be clearer: "Crypto contagion fears spread after Celsius Network freezes withdrawals."
[1] Add to this Bloomberg, The Verge, Financial Times, Yahoo Finance, Barrons, et al. Suggest closing this early as it is a bad nomination. -
Fuzheado |
Talk23:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep, the lender is top news everywhere, surely notable. Censorship is evil, and the attempt to censor an article from Wikipedia doubly so.
Tiphareth (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
13:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, for now. This would have been a potential delete barely keep before their apparent collapse, but freezing withdrawals has definitely caused additional coverage and notability.
Skynxnex (
talk)
15:10, 14 June 2022 (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.