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.
Don't think this meets the
WP:ORG requirement of multiple significant, reliable and independent coverage. The only real one is the Forbes article but it is more about the investment in the start-up as being notable. However, open-minded on this, and regardless, this article is going to be put up for AfD eventually (as it is, at best, borderline), so might as well test now. thank you.
Britishfinance (
talk) 16:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Noting here that there is a potential COI since the SPA account that created this article also tried to insert information about this company in at least 2 BLP pages that have since been reversed. --
Btcgeek (
talk) 17:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - The references all appear to publicity pieces. The Billboard ref is the only one that I questioned, but it's clear that it's coming from the same material as that of the very poor Forbes ref. --
Ronz (
talk) 20:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep I agree it's promotional, but I was able to find in-depth coverage quickly, and in good sources.
This Artnet article is quite good. Coupled with Forbes and Billboard, it's enough... unless someone wants to make the argument that it's all coverage of a single issue. At the very least some editing is required.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk) 04:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Very clearly No - references must be intellectually independent. An article such as Artnet.com that relies pretty much exclusively on an interview with a company officer and on a Billboard reference which is also on the same style (promotional and relying exclusively on quotations/interview with company officers) fails
WP:ORGIND and/or
WP:CORPDEPTH. In fact, NCORP guidelines were tightened up last year specifically to exclude this type of churnalism
HighKing++ 14:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
clpo13(
talk) 17:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The coverage is pretty much standard level 'startup gets funding' rewritten press-release type, which is not impressive.
Artnet is just a bit better, as it cites
WP:INTERVIEW from Billboard... plus is Artnet a sufficient-quality and high-profile source to warrant keeping this? I think one source is not sufficient. Nope, to me this is still
WP:CORPSPAM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 18:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references are entirely promotional, the article provides no indications of why this company is notable. References fails
WP:ORGIND and/or
WP:CORPDEPTH. Article fails
WP:SPIP,
WP:NCORP and GNG.
HighKing++ 14:21, 3 February 2019 (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.
Don't think this meets the
WP:ORG requirement of multiple significant, reliable and independent coverage. The only real one is the Forbes article but it is more about the investment in the start-up as being notable. However, open-minded on this, and regardless, this article is going to be put up for AfD eventually (as it is, at best, borderline), so might as well test now. thank you.
Britishfinance (
talk) 16:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Noting here that there is a potential COI since the SPA account that created this article also tried to insert information about this company in at least 2 BLP pages that have since been reversed. --
Btcgeek (
talk) 17:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - The references all appear to publicity pieces. The Billboard ref is the only one that I questioned, but it's clear that it's coming from the same material as that of the very poor Forbes ref. --
Ronz (
talk) 20:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep I agree it's promotional, but I was able to find in-depth coverage quickly, and in good sources.
This Artnet article is quite good. Coupled with Forbes and Billboard, it's enough... unless someone wants to make the argument that it's all coverage of a single issue. At the very least some editing is required.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk) 04:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Very clearly No - references must be intellectually independent. An article such as Artnet.com that relies pretty much exclusively on an interview with a company officer and on a Billboard reference which is also on the same style (promotional and relying exclusively on quotations/interview with company officers) fails
WP:ORGIND and/or
WP:CORPDEPTH. In fact, NCORP guidelines were tightened up last year specifically to exclude this type of churnalism
HighKing++ 14:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
clpo13(
talk) 17:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The coverage is pretty much standard level 'startup gets funding' rewritten press-release type, which is not impressive.
Artnet is just a bit better, as it cites
WP:INTERVIEW from Billboard... plus is Artnet a sufficient-quality and high-profile source to warrant keeping this? I think one source is not sufficient. Nope, to me this is still
WP:CORPSPAM. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 18:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references are entirely promotional, the article provides no indications of why this company is notable. References fails
WP:ORGIND and/or
WP:CORPDEPTH. Article fails
WP:SPIP,
WP:NCORP and GNG.
HighKing++ 14:21, 3 February 2019 (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.