Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankex

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bankex

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions / WP:SPIP. Likely COI / UPE; pls see User_talk:Sean_zuk#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia;_paid_editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Objection, to the proposal, and the nomination
This article was listed for consideration for deletion with an inappropriate quotation, after significant improvement and addition of references, by an editor who seems to be proud of pushing articles for deletion:

(from their own talk page: "Deletionism" - I'm working towards a Deletionist's Cross of the Iron Cross.

This kind of "article vendetta" approach is not funny, is contrary to Wikipedia's professed spirit, and represents someone working out their personal issues, and potentially throwing away both valid content and other folk's hard work. Notably no attempt has been made to make any constructive suggestions on the Talk page of the article, in fact the Talk page has not even been brought into being.

The quoted reason is: "A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found" - but this is a notice that was posted *by the same user* when the article was *two lines long*, with no structure, categorization or citation. It is simply ridiculous to now post such a notice on a more mature article, which has now been worked on on all those points.

The request to consider deletion also refers to one user and some question about them, but no user owns an article, and this has nothing to do with the more developed piece.

Further, some sources are offered, as a hint, I suppose, but Wikipedia does not work only from that very short list. In a new and fast moving area such as "Fintech" it is especially absurd not to source widely, by that logic much of the ever-growing online world would be missed until already "big." Overall, this nomination is unfair and improper, as it is clear from even a quick read that the company in question, and its technology, offer a potentially important advance in the world of blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Having vented that, in fairness I should go and try to source something myself. 62.148.0.114 (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a diff for your unfounded claim of the nom being a fascist deletionist? Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an occasional visitor, so not sure what a "diff" is, but having read the article, put forward an improvement, and been surprised at a proposal to delete, I followed the User Page link, and found: "Deletionism". For my two cents worth, the main issue is that no attempt was made by this editor Coffman to improve, or suggest improvements, and no recognition was given to various already-done improvements, whereas the quoted policy says: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." 109.252.27.29 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I got the impression from your comment that it was on his user talk page rather than a page with a clear humor tag. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I missed the humour tag. But I think that you confused me with a previous poster. I'm just a guy in a café who was reading about this company - it is not mentioned, but they did an Initial Coin Offering for 20+ MUSD last year - looked them up, added something, and followed the links. I understand your point, but still, I don't think that deleting real-life content (there is no doubt the company and its technology exist) is something to do lightly. This sort of in-joking is one of the things which sometimes puts people off joining Wikipedia (says the occasional editor, here and at home). I made no claims of Nazism or any similar thing (and I see the other editor is something of a specialist in countering that vicious area, so I would be especially sensitive around that.109.252.27.29 (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise you register an account. I assumed you were the same person. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The subject is not notable, the company is not the subject of multiple, reliable, in-depth independent sources. This cannot be fixed or 'improved', since it is not a content or formatting issue. Accusing the nom of being a deletionist nazi and whinging about perceived injustice is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide something. Probably the COI / UPE issue. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, it has 6 different references, there are thousands, at least, of Wikipedia articles with zero to <6. Not everyone has BBC or NYT coverage. And is it not better, in debate, to avoid jargon like COI and UPE. I sse a humour heading on your own page, so I hope you take this in the same spirit. Industry coverage and a good deal of real money says this company and its technological innovation have something going, and it seems to be potentially important.

The place is closing, so a closing comment - Prince of Thieves, I see one of your flags on your page is as "Advisor" - so why not suggest something positive about the page. For myself, I know a little of the topic of bitcoin and similar from a business aspect, but maybe the article would work better if it were less technical, or more explanatory? I really think you're being too strict on your test of notability, which would also see going out of the encyclopedia almost all articles on sports stars below national level, many books and games (only covered in specialist magazines), and so on. You've over 1500 edits, the other editor involved over 70000!, surely there are some constructive suggestions? G'night! 109.252.27.29 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that four of those sources are borderline and should never be used on Wikipedia to show notability. The Huffington Post is considered unreliable, this is explained somewhere by DGG, basically it has little editorial integrity. Goldbitcoin.org, newsbtc.com and cryptotimes.org are all dubious industry sources, with no clear editorial integrity, and a great deal of published press releases and tabloid type coverage (or hype). This leaves a short mention in Financial IT and an almost unrelated article in the Daily Telegraph. This is not substantial in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Therefore delete. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm back to this, after some days of "real life" and I get the points above, but I think this article has enough sourcing and substance to stay and be improved. Various people have already worked on it. Matter of fact, what percentage of Wikipedia is built that way, by unregistered users "putting a few bricks in the wall"? It can always be reviewed again in say 6 months. And to the next commentator- no it's not "highly promotional". Check out a few press releases, much more pushy. I can't comment deeply on the technology but the idea seems to be seen as new by industry figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.27.29 (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it can be deleted and then maybe recreated in six months. You clearly have no concept about what is promotional, almost the entire article is made up of primary sourced technological hype speak. and things like Users are able to keep close track of various assets and verify their condition instantly, which could reduce the cost of asset valuation, speed up transations, and improve market liquidity.. so yes this is bad. If you want to work on something with a little leeway, how about something that isn't a fintech startup? The standards for corporations are vastly more difficult to pass, than those on say on villages or sports players. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly promotional, routine press for a new startup. They seem think that their protocol for financial smart contracts, backed by the blockchain ledger, seems to be something they invented, given the primary work was done, 5 maybe 7 years ago. scope_creep (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sources for the notability of a company.There is no point comparing with other articles, since we admittedly have thousands of articles from earlier periods where the guidelines were applied erratically, and people here less vigilant. Further, the general rules for notability are in practice applied differently for different subjects, and their relationship with the special rules is different. Whether we should cover athletes as widely as we do is possibly a little dubious, but at present the consensus is that we do. That we apply the rules strictly to organizations is also the clear practice,and is especially motivated by the need to discourage promotionalism , by removing articles about minor firms for which their is no encyclopedic material possible except their advertising. The Huffington Post is variable: their news articles are written by staff and apparently edited, but they show unmistakable bias. Their columns and features and blogs are written by the authors, and represent their views only. Between the bias and the lack of control, there isn;t much that is of use to an encyclopedia. (I do like and sometimes read the HP--but I wouldn't use it as a source here except in special circumstances.) DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional, weak sourcing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - has the original author anything to say? 83.220.236.220 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. All these IPs look like 1 person as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has some coverage, like Bloomberg and IT news sites. And many coin sites even if some are a bit PRish. I would not call it highly promotional, feels rather dry. And stop bashing IP contributors. In big cities a few major ISPs dominate but similar IP does not mean same person nor that people know each other! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.220.239.61 (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate - this tackles a whole new concept (well-referenced within the crypto world), not 5-7 years old (that's proof of -work and -stake), referenced by Bloomberg (a new application of the concept) and Financial IT. The article has improved a good deal since the admittedly poor start, and this should surely be encouraged?

A couple of the points above addressed: 1) All one person? On this page? Doesn't look like it in terms of content or style. Likewise (use any IP checking tool), the article has been worked on from multiple locations / countries. Is the spamming of WP so bad that suspicion is default? What happened to AGF? 2) Paid or CoI - if that first article was paid for, they must be the most incompetent paid agents ever. Maybe someone's overenthusiastic friend. 3) Differing standards - yes, understood. WP is split between "every hamlet or crossroads" and minor sportspeople and actors versus deep testing of corporations. But an area like cryptocurrency needs to be tested against a standard relevant to an emerging area; compare articles in relevant categories, maybe?

37.186.230.180 (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standards are set in policy by the community, right now they are making the requirements for companies like this scricter, but I am sure the quality will steadily improve. I personally think that IP editors are automatically under suspicion, but so are new editors at AfD, this is because of routine paid/COI editors breaking all the rules to try and keep their articles by hook and crook. If this is deleted or draftified then additional sources may become available if this company becomes better covered. However there is a general consensus that companies need to be subject to stricter guidelines than villages, to maintain the quality of the project by protecting against promotional articles. (See WP:PROMO). Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the courtesy of a reply. If the community is really unsure yet, I like this idea of Incubate or, lovely word, draftification. It captures the good, in some visible way. I've made several hundred edits over the years, mostly on my mobile, mostly small fixes, but I've been through this AfD process before too, twice, one article survived, one was deleted. 37.186.230.180 (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as edits are made to the draft at least every six months you can work on it until it becomes notable, if that happens. I suggest that you save a copy of the text now though because I can't guarantee the closer will move this to draft/user-space. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And so again, from home. Thanks for the hint. I did not mean to end up as "nanny" or incubator, but, to quote another peninsula, que sera sera. I will at least take a copy. But, as I like a challenge, I will try to add a reference or two more as well. I spent some time on the commute scanning "crypto space" within Wikipedia, this article is far from the weakest, and maybe there is a chance yet for Keep. Of course with even Google sceptical about these "new currencies" perhaps there will be fewer articles in time. Meantime, do try to have some faith. Is the editing now so tough, against the tide of bad material? I actually thought that this article's improvement was a sign of right thinking, though maybe some did have some, as they say, prior acquaintance, as I see several hands were Russian, where this Bankex's devops centre is. Grazie, Prince of Thieves from Island. 217.133.56.206 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2018 (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.