Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BTCJam

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 no consensus. Pretty even disagreement over whether new sources are enough to pass notability. Promotional language can be cleaned up through editing *cough cough* ansh 666 22:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTCJam

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A directory-like page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Bigcoin87 with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is significant coverage but it is all industry publications and most of it is general announcements. The only reliable source I found (Forbes) is simply a brief mention so would not count for notability. Agree that it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking independent sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I've reviewed the citations in the current version and added a WP:CORPDEPTH-type table to Talk:BTCJam. As of this writing, there are insufficient quality sources to support notability of the subject. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I've added a new citation which increases the # corpdepth valid citations to 3 (from 2). Not sure if this will tip, but here is the diff. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — ...and a fourth added. See the diff. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - striking previous !vote and changing to "Keep" as both book references provided by Ceyockey above appear to meet the criteria for establishing notabilty. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. Delete Agree with above, references fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is entirely promotional in tone; just because the company is defunct doesn't mean that it can't be promoted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Promotional tone is not a reason for deletion of an article about an otherwise notable topic, as this is a style matter that can be revised through editing. If the article is retained, could add Template:Advert as a hatnote. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It actually 100% is: WP:NOTSPAM is a core policy. WP:N is a guideline that incorporates WP:NOT into it as an equal part of its test to the GNG. Something cannot both be promotional and be notable at the same time under the notability guideline. The deletion policy also recognizes this in WP:DEL4, which deals with entirely promotional content, and WP:DEL14, which incorporates WP:NOT and gives editors in AfD wide discretion as to whether or not to delete something for failing NOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the newly added sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per SoWhy...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the new sources, I think notability is demonstrated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple search on the web indicates that the subject is notable. If it is promotional in tone, deletion is not the solution, rather impormvent is a better solution. Rgyalu (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed and blocked sock.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Rgyalu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Porter/Rousse chapter and the TechCrunch article are enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. — Newslinger talk 12:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- TechCrunch doesn't establish notability: it is not a reliable source as most of the content is not independent, so it is ruled out by WP:ORGIND, meaning it does not count towards WP:NCORP. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only the book source meets WP:NCORP, and one source is not enough to establish notability. The rest are trade press/blogs/crap like TechCrunch that we haven't accepted as proof of notability in at least two years. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 2 August 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.