Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Belatedly requesting a review of the close of this deletion discussion; deleting administrator Tone already declined, and a recreation of the originally proposed redirect today was speedy deleted by Muboshgu citing WP:G4. I'm not challenging the article's deletion - there was very clear consensus that the article should be removed, however out of 20 bolded !votes, 4 explicitly endorsed redirection, and 9 more either were of the form "delete and redirect as proposed" or endorsed deletion because the topic was covered at the proposed redirect target. Only 5 endorsed deletion and made no further argument. I feel that upon wholesome analysis of the comments in the discussion, "the result was delete" is an incomplete reading, and that today's creation of a redirect in its place does not qualify for WP:G4 and should be restored. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 17:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

My G4 deletion was based on Tone closing the AfD as delete and not mentioning the possibility of redirect. There were votes to redirect, but that was not the closing admin's decision. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

"Not mentioning the possibility of redirect" is basically what I think should be reviewed. G4 was probably procedurally correct given the close but maybe not taking the whole situation into account, but that's really a side point to whether the close was entirely accurate in the first place. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 19:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn something if the question is whether to allow a redirect. Either overturn the close from Delete to Delete and Redirect, or overturn the G4 because a redirect is not substantially the same as the deleted article. If what is being requested is restoring the redirect, then overturn something to permit it to be done. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  That does not make sense. If the AFD is closed as delete with no redirect, then you can't immediately rock up and recreate the redirect anyway, because it's "not substantially the same". What would be the point of debating the merits of delete vs redirect then? That's a clear G4 whichever way you cook it. You can only overturn if the close itself was wrong.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 09:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  I realize you want G4 to stretch to that. And I can see why. But as written, it clearly doesn't. And in my opinion, it shouldn't. We have a place to discuss redirects. The people that frequent that venue tend to be more knowledgeable about our redirect policies than those that frequent AfD. Hobit ( talk) 16:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion of redirect per Robert McClenon. Hobit ( talk) 03:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I read a consensus to delete, not redirect, with the vast majority !voting for that or approving that. Also, Wikipedia should not be entrenching controversial political phases as redirects that will give positive feedback to external search algorithms. The existence of the redirect causes the internal search engine to be bypassed by default. No redirect gives a far superior result, as multiple pages may better match, now and in the future. See the real internal search. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That's fine, but are you claiming a redirect is a recreation of the original article? If not, how does G4 apply? Hobit ( talk) 05:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I think, if the AfD was closed with a calling of consensus to not have a redirect, then G4 serves as the mechanism to enforce the decision. I think that call was not clear, and so the redirect should go to RfD, on second look. At RfD, I would !vote to delete as above. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion of the redirectA decision to delete an article does not prohibit the subsequent creation of a redirect. I'm not even sure that an AfD could legitimately close with a decision to delete and not allow a redirect Anyone objecting to the redirect should proceed via RfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion - G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies", so it doesn't seem applicable in this case. ‑Scottywong | [prattle] || 06:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to redirect. Looking at the debate itself, it seems fairly clear that the prevailing consensus was to remove the content and redirect. Like SmokeyJoe I probably wouldn't vote that way myself, I'd just delete outright. But a case for notability was made in the discussion and I didn't participate, so from an independent perspective that was the outcome. Re suggestions that the G4 was wrong, that's just preposterous. AFD closing instructions explicitly note delete and redirect as separate outcomes for the close, which means if it's delete it's delete. You can't then recreate the redirect anyway. The substantially identical clause is met because the closer said explicitly no to a redirect, and recreating that redirect therefore means creating something that was rejected. Until and unless the close itself if overturned, the redirect should remain deleted.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 09:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Amakuru, to be clear, are you !voting for undeletion of the article behind the redirect? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Who do we think is likely to type Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories into the search box?— S Marshall  T/ C 16:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The redirects and links to this page that were also deleted and removed, sight-likely-unseen, are a little more plausible. Also, blah blah internal search hinting blah. — Cryptic 21:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Also, if someone bookmarked this article, they at least will now get more than a "no page" error. Hobit ( talk) 04:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply
      • If you go straight to the redlink, via bookmark or clicking on it now, you get the fairly usefully informative deletion log that links to the AfDs, the later of which will link to this discussion. That will be far more useful than a redirect to but one relevant page. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply
        • It's appalling and abhorrent that American people who have brown skin get targeted in this way. Trump talks in an unfiltered stream of consciousness, and the media hangs off his every word; I think we, as Western society, and we, as Wikipedians, both pay far too much attention to his random blitherings. He'll say something completely different tomorrow. I honestly think it would be best to ignore the whole thing; but good faith editors disagree and they have an arguable case, so I rather grudgingly suppose I'd come down on the "allow redirect" side here.— S Marshall  T/ C 12:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply
        • I'm not certain that most people would want to delve into the deletion discussions? Useful for regular editors, but I'm pretty sure (though I'm honestly not positive) that most folks would find that fairly hard to understand and get useful information out of. Hobit ( talk) 19:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Going straight to the redlink only gives you the deletion log if you're logged in. (Or, I seem to recall, very shortly after the deletion.) — Cryptic 07:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4. A redirect is not substantially identical to a substantive article. G4 does not authorize deletion by administrative fiat merely because an admin believes they can accurately predict the outcome of a deletion discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 03:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4 deletion - G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" Lightburst ( talk) 14:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4 - this case is a good example of why G4 doesn't apply to articles recreated as redirects after an AFD: because whether it's OK to redirect or not OK to redirect is a judgment call that should not be made on a speedy basis. People will often disagree as to whether a particular AFD discussion did or did not prohibit recreation as a redirect. If someone !votes "redirect" and it's closed as "delete" and the closer doesn't say anything about redirect, does that mean recreating as a redirect is permitted or prohibited? Hard to say, need to read the discussion to really get it. Not all closers will remember to specifically say that a redirect is permitted or prohibited. Hence, we shouldn't delete such recreated redirects on a speedy basis; instead, if someone thinks an article was inappropriately created as a redirect, the thing to do is to RFD it, where editors can examine the AFD and determine if a redirect does or doesn't have consensus. G4 is narrow and specific by design, just like all the other CSD criteria. Le v!v ich 19:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4 of the redirect, without comment on whether the redirect can be discussed at RfD. SportingFlyer T· C 09:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4 and allow redirect - the combination of a sloppily-worded close and a context-insensitive G4 deletion have clearly thwarted the consensus of the deletion discussion. Someone needs to WP:FIXIT. Newimpartial ( talk) 15:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4 a Delete closure at AfD doesn't usually preclude a redirect, it just means the article should be deleted. The title can still be redirected afterwards. A redirect is not substantially similar to an article. Hut 8.5 18:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• I'm going to buck the trend here and say the G4 was perfectly reasonable. Yes, most of the time it's incorrect to G4 a redirect based on an afd. Here, though, the afd explicitly considered whether to redirect, at length - it was even started with the goal to redirect without deleting - and was closed as deletion instead. The standard for whether G4 applies to a recreation that's not byte-for-byte identical to a previous version is whether the changes would have been enough to materially affect the outcome of the afd, and "#REDIRECT Natural-born-citizen_clause#Kamala_Harris" plainly doesn't for an afd that discussed that specific redirect target and was closed as "delete, don't redirect".
  That said, I don't see a consensus in this afd to forbid the redirect. Even most of the participants bolding "Delete" say that the subject is already covered at the redirect target. So endorse the G4, overturn the afd, and my apologies for the policy-wonking. — Cryptic 07:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Cryptopia ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Nominator wrote: "This seems like a Non-notable cryptocurrency exchange. All the coverage of it the article is extremely trivial, for instance a bank closing their account, and I wasn't able to find anything that would pass WP:NCORP in a before."

From that guideline: "Examples of substantial coverage" include "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization."

Can't believe I have to say this, but quite simply, it has ongoing media coverage.

The following sources were not in the article and there's no indication that they knew about or considered them. See archive.org snapshot of the article during its AfD.

• May 24, 2019 " New Zealand Crypto Firm Hacked to Death, Seeks U.S. Bankruptcy" Bloomberg
• May 27, 2019 " Cryptopia cofounder stands by new venture, says failed company was 'like Game of Thrones'" The New Zealand Herald
• May 27, 2019 " US court hands Cryptopia bankruptcy protections" Stuff
• May 28, 2019 " How New Zealand company Cryptopia lost over $20 million from a hack" The Spinoff
• May 31, 2019 " Cryptopia first liquidators report shows it owes more than $4.2m" Stuff
• June 5, 2019 " Cryptopia liquidator knocks-back international buyer Stuff
• June 10, 2019 " Investors with tens of thousands in Cryptopia waiting for information" Stuff
• July 17, 2019 " Cryptopia boss blames former shareholder for company problems" Stuff
• December 13, 2019 " Liquidators retrieve Cryptopia customer info from Arizona" Radio New Zealand
• December 17, 2019 " Cryptopia heist: Cops update, liquidators ask court to rule on key question" The New Zealand Herald
• February 8, 2020 " Sabotage or theft? Inside the $24m Cryptopia heist" Stuff
• February 11, 2020 " Cryptopia anti-money laundering compliance issues revealed to court" Radio New Zealand
• April 9, 2020 " Cryptopia liquidation: Judge rules bitcoin is property The New Zealand Herald
• June 15, 2020 " $30m Cryptopia heist: Liquidators wheel out the heavy artillery" The New Zealand Herald
• July 21, 2020 " Tech firm caught in $20m Cryptopia hack takes legal aim at liquidators" Newshub
• July 24, 2020 " Controversial businessman recruiting Cryptopia victims for class action" Stuff
• September 21, 2020 " $30m Cryptopia heist: Liquidators likely heading back to court" The New Zealand Herald

I did not participate in the AfD. The reasoning to delete is now invalid because I have shown how it does meet the guideline. The article should be restored and require a new AfD in order to delete. Ҥ ( talk) 10:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse if the appellant is arguing that the close did not reflect the discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Arguing that it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Ҥ ( talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The statement that 'The reasoning to delete is now invalid' is unpleasant and isn't the most collaborative way to get an article approved. Is the appellant trying to insult the closer, or is the appellant only forgetting to be civil? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  "Deletion review may be used:

  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;

  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"

  WP:G4 excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"

  The appellant respectfully disputes the eligibility of G4, your honor. Ҥ ( talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  The appellant could have said "no longer applies" rather than saying "is now invalid", which is insulting. But perhaps we should not expect courtesy when dealing with cryptocurrency. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Allow Draft if that is what the appellant is asking, but reviewers, like closers, are likely to be cautious about cryptocurrency. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • They're not asking for a draft, or at least not honestly if so. They asked Tony to undelete and draftify it, and when he did, they immediately moved it into mainspace (where it was promptly G4ed). — Cryptic 17:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

    Also asked "So I can add significant details of the liquidation / bankruptcy proceedings to the article. Would you agree that the article won't be worthy of speedy deletion if I improve it based off all this?" [1]

    I moved it days later, not immediately. I admit that I did not make significant improvements, only minor. But I am not disputing the deletion on those grounds ("excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"). Ҥ ( talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

    • Time elapsed between first post-restoration edit and the move into mainspace was 51 minutes. — Cryptic 01:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• I endorse the original closing decision. Those news items are just reporting on court orders and press releases, they do not contain original research as required by WP:ORGIND. It is unreasonable (you imply it is reasonable when you complain that there was "no indication that they knew about [...] them") to expect a deletion debate to list every single source that can be found. The deletion debate had an outcome that still stands, since the rules of WP:ORGIND also disqualify the sources you listed. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 16:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  I don't think any of it is from press releases. I don't see how this one could be, for example:

  • February 8, 2020 " Sabotage or theft? Inside the $24m Cryptopia heist" Stuff

    "Cryptopia could have been one of New Zealand's most successful hi-tech start-ups. Its end was caused by one of the country's biggest heists worth $24 million. SAM SHERWOOD and MARTIN VAN BEYNEN follow the twisted path to the company's collapse."

  And I did not attempt to list every other source I could find. See:

  • April 3, 2019 Hacked Cryptopia investors in the dark over rebate Newsroom

    This was not in the article during the AfD.

  • April 8, 2020 " Cryptopia account holders win battle over assets worth $140m" Stuff

    The New Zealand Herald also published something about this court decision, and I only listed that one.

  So I only listed sources after the initial May 2019 liquidation news and did not include ones that are about the same thing. Ҥ ( talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment pinging debate participants indiscriminately @ Adamant1:, @ Bearian:, @ 97.113.248.72: -- Ysangkok ( talk) 16:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

  Template:Reply to says "IP addresses are only notified if you post to their user talk page."

  An inexperienced IP user probably would not be able to impact the outcome of this deletion review, so doesn't matter if they are notified. Ҥ ( talk) 23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - At this point I think the only real question is whether to salt. But DRV is not a salt mine. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• OK, I'm seeing one bit of coverage, in the same vein as previous coverage, since the AfD. The G4 is fine. That said, I think the coverage is way over what is needed for an article. Maybe it should be an event article on the "heist" or something. But that's plenty of coverage. relist at AfD The sources listed above were not really discussed in the very limited AfD that resulted in deletion. Hobit ( talk) 03:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Properly deleted. WP:Reference bombing is not a way to sidestep WP:CORP, and cryptocurrencies are given very little leeway. Allow drafting, and advise proponents to follow the advice at WP:THREE. The criteria for inclusion, once you understand them, are very low, it takes only two qualifying sources. If you can’t do it with three, give up. Don’t waste our time with reference bombing. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • These are almost all articles with the name of the company in the title. Pointing out that there are metric ton of sources is useful given that we use sources as our method of deciding to keep an article or not. I agree it would be best if the nom listed the best few sources, but I think knowing that there is this much (almost all negative) coverage is useful to the decision process. Hobit ( talk) 04:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
    • For commercial topics, it is hard work to judge whether the sources are independent. You have to analyse the writing style, look into the history of the author, and look for links between the company and the publisher. An objective story next to advertising for the product, and I deem it non-independent. Let the onus for making the choice of best sources lie with the proponent. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Sure, but in this case, they are almost all pretty uniformly negative. Maybe someone is pulling strings somewhere in the coverage, but it seems unlikely to be the company. Hobit ( talk) 21:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Sure indeed. My gut feel is that this topic has a good chance of getting back into mainspace, and the best and most efficient route is via draftspace and the advice at WP:THREE. With a clear AfD less than six months ago, it is not OK to just re-create straight into mainspace. This DRV was ill-advised, as the AfD process was done correctly. Here at DRV we will review the sources more actively, if AfC refuse to mainspace it on submission, and if the notability evidence is not excessively long. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist. This is not the place to reconsider the details. It needs instead another discussion at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• There's probably not enough there for a standalone article, but I do think there's enough about the breach to expand cryptocurrency exchange#History to cover Cryptopia as well as Mt. Gox. Once that's done we could have a redirect instead of a redlink in this space. Cryptocurrency articles have such a shitty history on Wikipedia that I'd advocate pre-emptive, indefinite full protection of the redirect.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion if I'm allowed to do that (if not then this just a comment. Since I was pinged). The good majority of sources that Ҥ mind read weren't reviewed were around before the AfD and were considered, at least by me. As stated by Ysangkok most (or all of them) are garbage and not every source in existence (or that was looked over) needs be listed in an AfD for the outcome be valid. Also, the close of the AfD, which is what AfD reviews are for, was perfectly valid based on the consensus. So, there's zero grounds to do another AFD about it or do anything else related to it either. Except for keeping it deleted. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 08:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I wrote "there's no indication that they knew about or considered them." Claiming you knew about them before I brought them up at deletion review doesn't change anything for me. I think they should be considered in text at AfD, not just inside your mind which I can't read. Ҥ ( talk) 06:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but the world doesn't revolve around you and that's not how AfDs work. If you don't like it cool, but it's not my problem. Feel free to take your ridiculous assertion about it to whatever forum serves as the place to discuss changing AfD policy though, but this isn't the place for it. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and disallow recreation for now per SmokeyJoe and Adamant1. The deletion nom was based on poor sourcing in the article at the time, but also a failure to find sources to satisfy WP:NCORP. That remains the case and per SmokeyJoe the above links don't show enduring notability, NCORP or even GNG (they are not in depth secondary coverage, but rather news articles tangential to the subject). Keep in draft, find the WP:THREE best sources is they exist, and then we can reconsider. Cheers  —  Amakuru ( talk) 09:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Is this source good enough for NCORP? If not, can you explain why?

February 8, 2020 " Sabotage or theft? Inside the $24m Cryptopia heist" Stuff

"Cryptopia could have been one of New Zealand's most successful hi-tech start-ups. Its end was caused by one of the country's biggest heists worth $24 million. SAM SHERWOOD and MARTIN VAN BEYNEN follow the twisted path to the company's collapse."

Quoting participants and requesting if they or anyone else can expand on their reasoning, with regard to just this one source I've highlighted.

@ Ysangkok: "Those news items are just reporting on court orders and press releases, they do not contain original research as required by WP:ORGIND."

@ Adamant1: "As stated by Ysangkok most (or all of them) are garbage"

@ Amakuru: "the above links don't show enduring notability, NCORP or even GNG (they are not in depth secondary coverage, but rather news articles tangential to the subject)" Ҥ ( talk) 06:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

On my end no, because I don't think a deletion review is the place to relitigate AfDs in that way or to analyze sources. "new" or otherwise. Like me (and other people) have already said, a deletion review is to determine if the AfD was closed properly or not based on the consensus. Not to continue the AfD, just in another forum. Which is what your trying to do by making us analysis sources post AfD close. More so because the hiest and if it was enough on it's own to make them notable was already discussed in the AfD. Just because you have another source about it, that people already looked over, doesn't mean or change anything, or make what your doing any less relitigation. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

I believe I already explained the same above but I'll do it again for you:

"Deletion review may be used: if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;"

WP:G4 excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"

If the nominator claimed that he "wasn't able to find anything that would pass WP:NCORP in a before", then that no longer applies if any qualifying sources can later be identified. Ҥ ( talk) 02:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Sure, except you've failed to find any sources, new or otherwise, that are "qualifying." Just asking people's opinions repeatedly about the same sources that were already looked at for the AfD and have been rejected repeatedly doesn't count. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Disallow and oppose. All the coverage is after the fact reporting, re: what is happening at the liquidation company. There is no new in-depth analysis to support undeletion. Several of them seem to be the same story, indicating a press-release as the source. scope_creep ^Talk 14:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply

1) @ Scope creep: Did you look at this source? " Sabotage or theft? Inside the $24m Cryptopia heist"

2) About 1,300 out of 2,500 total words are about the the company before the hack from counting everything after "The Hobbyists" to before "The Hack". Is that accurate? If not, what would be more accurate to say?

3) WP:CORPDEPTH says "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." So even if you think it's not an "in-depth analysis", how does it otherwise fail? Like why isn't it an overview?

4) I don't think any of the sources I linked to at the start of this deletion review are the same story. Which ones do you think are the same story? Ҥ ( talk) 02:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It seems already to have been deleted. Bearian ( talk) 22:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Bearian:, all articles discussed in Deletion Review have already been deleted. The purpose of the discussion is explained at Wikipedia:Deletion_review. You're not supposed to "vote" delete here. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 22:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Endorse deletion then. Bearian ( talk) 23:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I might not have been clear in my comment as I had quick review of the instructions, but I absolutely Endorse deletion. The references posted above are routine announcements , that startup creates using the branding and advertising budget, and clearly fail the WP:NCORP policy. A routine court-case re: the liquidation, is simply not notable. scope_creep ^Talk 08:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the discussion as a delete. Based on the argument, I don't have an issue if the DRV nominator wants to create a brand new draft using the articles above (which I have not reviewed) but given the discussion was clear and our ongoing difficulty with crypto-spam I don't think this should be a straight up restore. SportingFlyer T· C 09:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I suggest the OP try to write a new draft if they want to show the subject is suitable for an article. I can't support restoring the previous one for them to work on because when that was done before the OP moved it straight back to mainspace with essentially no changes (they added one external link). The fact that the subject has news coverage doesn't necessarily mean they are suitable for an article, because Wikipedia is not a news source and WP:CORP imposes strict criteria on sourcing for articles about organisations. The fact that we've had a lot of promotion for cryptocurrency-related subjects here does mean increased scrutiny on articles about them. Hut 8.5 12:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC) reply