Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5ire

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. After discussion rough consensus developed that the sourcing failed WP:NCORP and associated subguidelines. This is a case in which I found the delete arguments as whole to be more policy compliant. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

5ire

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

5ire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage from independent sources. The coverage is routine coverage of funding (WP:ORGTRIV), reprints of partnership announcements (WP:ORGIND), or "best startup" type awards that don't convey inherent notability. ~ A412 ^talk! 09:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Computing, and India. ~ A412 ^talk! 09:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Let's delve into the article's content before we explore the sources. The focus here is on the company's collaborations. Based on the information, as outlined in the sources, their core mission is to provide blockchain-based services. This focus on partnerships makes sense – the involvement of notable private and public organizations lends significant weight to the company's work. National and international collaborations can elevate the importance of a project and showcasing its potential. To my mind, focusing solely on the company's internal mechanisms might come across as promotional rather than informative. For example, titles for this company were used by the media, which in my opinion might make the article out of the encyclopedia mode, such as 'Sustainability-Focused Unicorn', 'India's 'fastest-growing blockchain unicorn', 'Green revolution with 5ire blockchain', or 'HOW 5IRE IS BUILDING A SUSTAINABILITY-FOCUSSED LAYER 1 BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM' and etc. The centrality of collaborations to the company's mission is why the article focuses heavily on these key partnerships. After its token was listed, this article became the target of repeated attacks. The content was constantly edited, sometimes deleted entirely, and sometimes filled with irrelevant ads to be tagged for issues. Sources that I added recentlly ([1], [2], [3]) + other source in article, discuss a different aspect of the company, focusing on its internal workings (mechanism and performance) rather than its collaborations. The extensive coverage surrounding this company is likely due to its rapid growth. Established in 2021, it became a unicorn company in 2022. However, the sources identified, focus significantly on the company. In my judgment, informed by the articles I've created and edited, this article meets Wikipedia's Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) requirements. YaseroSari (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - I was hoping this one would just go as an expired PROD because although I don't think it is notable, I don't think it is nothing either. A very young company that has managed to secure significant seed funding, it may well become notable, and it is probably just WP:TOOSOON. Anyway, now there is a keep vote, let's look at these sources. The relevant guideline is WP:NCORP and so sources must meet WP:SIRS (although, actually, all GNG sources should meet that. But that is moot). The thing to note here about these three sources, and all the article sourcing, is that it is reliant on WP:PRIMARY sources (pay attention to note d in the policy). These are news sources telling us about how they have secured $100 million funding, and also telling us about the stock market valuation - which is high, but we have seen that before in tech companies, many of which only became notable when they crashed and burned. Reporting the funding and valuation, no matter how many sources do it, is still news reporting, and WP:PRIMARYNEWS is a useful guideline to consider on that score. To look at this another way: what exactly are 5ire doing that is notable? What can be said about this company in the article? Note that the lead of the article currently only really tells us that they are notable for having secured money and a big paper valuation. I'd be content with a redirect if a suitable target were known. I don't think there is an article to be found here yet, and the sources do not meet SIRS, and so this is not notable for an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I voted to keep it, but I do have some reservations about YaseroSari's idea that I'd like to discuss further. I do not accept this: focusing solely on the company's internal mechanisms might come across as promotional rather than informative, You can focus on the company's core strengths and fundamentals by keeping the tone neutral. Even this move helps to prove the subject's notability. Anyway, I think an article focusing on the company's foundation and services would have been more informative. I also disagree with Sirfurboy, that stated what exactly are 5ire doing that is notable? What can be said about this company in the article? The Partnerships section of this article explains exactly what services this company provides. If this part was written better, it would specify the services of this company more clearly. If this company does not provide a efficient services, why should these organizations, which are considered notable, cooperate with this emerging company? This explanation of mine is not to prove the notability of this company by their partnerships, but to prove that this company provides services that they need. The source of each collaboration states the reason for it and what service they used and aslo more collaborations can be found on Google. It needs to be rewritten to highlight its services and base, not to be deleted.Dejaqo (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  The partnership section shows what they are doing, but not what they are doing that is notable. It would be the section to focus on though. Do we have WP:SIRS sources discussing a notable product/output? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This Indian company's rapid ascent has caught the eye of both domestic media within a year and even some Arabic sources, likely due to its Dubai headquarters. A quick Google search turns up a wealth of information, including articles. Finding three sources to show WP:GNG, shouldn't be too much trouble·Gedaali (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is a bit frustrating. This argument is WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The relevant guidelines here are WP:NCORP and we are looking for sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AfD is not a vote, and the time to actually find the sources and discuss them is now. I am not adamantly against this page existing. But what sources exist that show this is notable as a company, and not just a startup with a big valuation? If we can't answer that question, we should not be voting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, three well-chosen sources usually suffice to establish notability WP:NCORP. My comment was to check if the current sources in the article would be enough, as I noticed from the edit history that some unacceptable sources were removed. This company has been making headlines for three reasons: first, it achieved unicorn status. Second, its token was listed on exchanges. Third, its collaborations have garnered a lot of media attention. About the first, as I red, you believe its WP:TOOSOON. In the second case, you would raised a concern that the sources might be too specific to cryptocurrency. In the third case, you clearly rejected it. I bring again some of the sources that I think meet the criteria. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and... . This article has potential, but I think there might be ways to strengthen it.Gedaali (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, three well-chosen sources usually suffice to establish notability WP:NCORP. But your experience is limited by the fact that you have only ever commented on AfDs today. Moreover, rather than giving 3 well chosen sources, you pasted in 8. Source 3 does not mention 5ire, and 3 of these are all from the Economic Times so count as one. They are also not the fruit of new searches but sources already on the page, so already considered. I can put together a source analysis table, but which of these do you actually think are secondary sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I looked through the sources provided, and I think the Economic Times source actually has analysis, but in general, the rest of the provided sources fall short on significant coverage, basically reprinting the funding announcement of "5ire raised money on a 1b+ valuation, here's what they said they're doing with it". ~ A412 ^talk! 17:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears that sourcing is beginning to be discussed in earnest, this is to give that process more time. A source analysis would helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Sourcing. No answer to my query above asking for which of those 8 sources meet CORPDEPTH, so I have analysed them all. As I say, 3 of them are from the Economic Times and count as one. That is moot too because only one of the Economic Times articles has anything substantive. My analysis lacks some work I did not check the reliability of sources that failed on other criteria. My feeling is they all look reliable, but appearances can be deceptive. I also did not check the independence, which will be affected if we find a press release or evidence of a press release that they are written off. My analysis is my own, and I am happy to discuss any points made. Here is the table:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Economic Times [4] [5] [6]		Indian financial paper, part of the Times of India group.	There are three links, the second has no coverage and the third is not significant, just reporting, along with others, the high valuation. It is the first of these that goes beyond that. Note that the first is also occasioned by the same issue - the valuation - but it leads the writer to dig out additional history and analysis and is significant and useful. The piece raises queries about the high valuation as no product is yet released. Note that my evaluation is based only on what I can see in preview as the content is paywalled and when I attempted to pay it told me that readers in Europe and California are prevented from making payments for their content. This is an Indian news source but I have no access to the content. However, my evaluation of the depth is based on the claim it is a 10 minute read, suggesting 1000-1500 words. Coupled with what I see, I believe this is significant analysis, but I could, in fact, be wrong. ETA, in light of the analysis below by Highking, I am unable to refute that analysis as I have not read the full text and cannot read it. I would have paid, but the content is geographocally restricted. I cannot therefore verify my view and could well be wrong. I am updating this to unkown. 17 April 16:28
Tech in Asia [7]		Probably reliable, I just haven't checked.	"And that brings us to today’s two-part Big Story. 5ire, a blockchain company that few had ever heard of a year ago, rocketed to unicorn status in July. On closer inspection, the deal seems doubtful, given it hasn’t yet launched a product or gotten significant traction."	It is occasioned by news but the quoted paragraph, just about all it says on 5ire, is analysis. Extremely brief analysis.
inc 42 [8]	Is this off the back of a press release?	Probably. I haven't verified.	There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH.	Partial. Inasmuch as it is news reporting, it is a primary source.
Business Standard [9]	Is this off the back of a press release?	Probably. I haven't verified.	There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH.	Partial. Inasmuch as it is news reporting, it is a primary source.
Money Control [10]	Is this off the back of a press release?	Probably. I haven't verified.	There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH.	Report of becoming unicorn. Primary news reporting
Mint [11]	Is this off the back of a press release?	Unclear. If this is Mintpress news, then this is no. Mintpress news are a deprecated source. But I think they may be different.	There is some information about 5ire but does not meet CORPDEPTH. It is all company supplied history and no analysis.	Report of acquisition of a stake in Network Capital. This is primary news reporting.

My summary: we have one source counting towards notability, but sources must be multiple. We are not there yet. I also note the source that points out lack of any products. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I see a couple of issues with your analysis. The Tech in Asia article seems quite significant. With over ten paragraphs, and repeated mentions of 5ire (10 times), it appears to offer a detailed exploration of the topic. Why wouldn't you consider it significant? Do you consider it as a "passing mention"? I did not see this website among the unreliable news websites that you doubt its reliability. Also there are two other sources from same website, The convicted fraudster backing 5ire, ‘India’s 105th unicorn’ and 5ire investors angry over delay on promised refunds. CEO blames mystery fund. Regarding the second source of the Economic Times, reference number 4 and 5 are essentially the same and the problem is presented in the link. Anyway, 5ire wins the AIBC 2022 'Social Impact Project of the Year' award, this article looks like it covers the subject quite significantly. In my opinion, this article meets the WP:GNG because of the significant coverage it receives from reliable sources, as evidenced by the WP:SIGCOV. Also, I'm not sure about reliability and independence of Blockchain Unicorn 5ire Unveils a New Approach Towards Sustainability Pratik Gauri, CEO - 5ire, please check it out. Gedaali (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You are commenting on an NCORP AfD. So I have repeatedly mentioned WP:CORPDEPTH. This is the relevant test for significant coverage:

Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

You are new to AfD, and very welcome here, but I think you are missing something here. Not surprising. NCORP AfDs have a lot to consider. But what have we got about this company that allows us to write more than a stub that tells us it has a big valuation? What notable thing does it do? The sources considered above indicate a lack of product, so it is not just this AfD asking that question. That last one you just asked me to look at purports to answer the question, but it doesn't. All it tells us is that it is a proof of stake blockchain. Sorry... a sustainable proof of stake blockchain. Whatever that means. I mean... all proof of stake is eminently more sustainable than proof of work. But How is that notable? I suppose it may become notable if people start using it. But it isn't yet. But then, you might say that at least that source is telling us about a product. Except it is telling us about a product in 5ire's words with 5ire's diagrams and 5ire's examples. That piece is clearly not independent. So nope, we can't use that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I appreciate the clarification. I think your last explanation was about Outlook, perhaps we discuss that another time, but for now. About 3 sources of Tech in Asia and 2 of The Economic Times (1, 2), based on the definitions in WP:CORPDEPTH and their absence in Examples of trivial coverage consider them as significant coverage. You asked about this company's product. Going back to the above comments posted by others. This company has a track record of providing service. I do not expect physical product/service from this company. Their collaborations are focused on delivering service, not on promoting each other or their own agendas. For example their collaboration with Goa Police was in order to digitize its operations and utilization of paperless document by using blockchain technology (3) and also delivered other services in their other collaborations. This company's product are its services. About its service delivery, I think it has been discussed enough here service delivery.Here is my analysis of several sources: Gedaali (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This company has a track record of providing service. No it doesn't. The example you cite is a Memorandum of Understanding to assist Goa police with something that is, in any case, unrelated to the blockchain. It is an MoU. They haven't done anything yet. This all looks like press release and vapourware. To be honest, at this point I am concerned this looks like an investor scam and we are being made participants in it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing all the comments that have been posted in this discussion so far, evidences and clues, I agree with you. Delete. Gedaali (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Economic Times [12]
Economic Times [13]			This article refers to the award of this company, but it also deals with other issues
Tech in Asia [14]			I checked this from WP:CORPDEPTH and the entire article consists of more than ten paragraphs focusing on the company
Tech in Asia [15]

For now, these 4 cases are enough for analysis. Gedaali (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. The majority of sources are just press releases and the most in-depth sources are about alleged fraud (which is not mentioned in the article). One has already been linked above, here are the other two I found:
  • The convicted fraudster backing 5ire, ‘India’s 105th unicorn’
  • 5ire investors angry over delay on promised refunds. CEO blames mystery fund

The question (as with many of these crypto articles...) seems to be whether the alleged fraud has generated enough in-depth coverage to merit inclusion. Citing (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Reply to second table I have already explained to you that you should aggregate multiple sources from the same publisher. For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple". per WP:MULTSOURCES. So your table simply repeats Economic Times that I felt did meet SIRS, and disagrees with my analysis on Tech in Asia based on a paragraph count rather than the content. The content on the first link to Tech in Asia does not meet CORPDEPTH, but I don't think you can have read that site very well because the 10 paragraphs are nothing much, but there are links in the article to two longer articles, which, along with your link [15], paint a picture that might suggest possible fraud. If there is a notable subject here, it is not the company itself, which doesn't seem to do anything at all. It is about a possible fraud. Citing also notices this in the comment above. Are we WP:TOOSOON for an article about the alleged fraud? Or could we be looking at renaming this article and repurposing based on reliable secondary coverage of alleged fraud? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I am just going to expand on my view that there is no product here, because checking the crypto exchanges, you can actually buy 5irechain tokens [16] as of last December. Hopefully you didn't, as the price is falling... but meh, it's crypto. However that token would suggest there is a blockchain product. Except there isn't. Here is an announcement for what you can buy: [17]. This is an ERC-20 token which uses the Ethereum blockchain. So we still don't have any actual blockchain, and what we have is just another cryptocurrency token. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

this has no byline, neither does this which indicates NEWSORGINDIA. You will notice that second one starts with location which is classic press-release style confirming churnalism. For this and this are from a publication that does not appear to have editorial oversight. Not to mention the writer is a freelancer journalist who writes for many different publications. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Looking at the references which other editors claim to pass GNG/NCORP in their analysis tables above:
  • TechInAsia Article 1 has insufficient in-depth information on the company from a source unaffiliated with the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
  • TechInAsia Article 2 ais commenting on the same story as Article 1, is little more than a gossip column but more importantly, has zero in-depth information about the company, also fails CORPDEPTH
  • Article 3 and Article 4 from TechInAsia also both fail for the same reason, there is insufficient in-depth information about the company.
  • There are a couple of articles in the Economic Times. This one is a puff profile based entirely on information provided by the company and their execs after their funding announcement, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. This one also appears to rely entirely on information originating from the company or people connected with the company or investors. Fails CORPEPTH and ORGIND.
  • This from Inc42 is based entirely on an interview and information provided by the company, fails ORGIND
  • This in the Business Standard is also regurgitating information provided by the company in an announcement, fails ORGIND
  • This from MoneyControl fails for the same reason
  • This in Livemint is just one of many many article on this date regurgitating the company announcement. You can see a list of other articles on Crunchbase following the announcement. Fails ORGIND

None of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. It is a pity the source assessment table doesn't include a column for WP:CORPDEPTH and one for WP:ORGIND, it would make it easier to show why references fail GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• KEEP : after reading the article and checking with references I’ve removed some of the unreferenced content but company seems to be value adding in blockchain references are reliable NCORP is passed. Having multiple ref yet its not indepth I’m gonna leave it to the admin. HarryD (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Having multiple ref yet its not indepth - That is not an NCORP pass. if a reference does not have significant coverage, it does not count towards notability. You can't aggregate lots of passing mentions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Okay Understood. HarryD (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep & Comment Indian company with 1 billion valuation which means unicorn since I can’t find any guideline for unicorn startups having an article here, but definitely seems notable to me in general though the article is unnecessarily at start class or more, only facts needs to be added. For me its a KEEP Because High value startup and has quiet a lot media presence other than just paid pieces. AnkkAnkur (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Yes, I’ve just started, was learning over the months understanding the policies when to add vote etc. its my favourite area now so my vote will not be considered? I’ve voted in other discussions as well :/ AnkkAnkur (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  How have you been learning over the months without hands-on experience editing Wikipedia? If you have edited using an IP previously, please disclose the same in your user page and the areas where you have previously edited. Doing so will prevent other editors from assuming you are a single-purpose account. Either way, this conversation should continue on your talk page. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The available sources do not appear to meet any notability guideline currently in use on English Wikipedia, as opposed to colloquial definitions of the word. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - These references all fall short of WP:ORGCRIT which is a requirement to meet to establish notability for companies. Every one of these publications allows pay-for-play and based on the bylines some of the clearly fall in that category. Add on WP:NEWSORGINDIA and I cannot find a single in-depth source that could be considered for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Crypto fluff. Nearly every keep !voter has relatively few edits. I generally agree with Sirfurboy's source table but I would discount The Economic Times entirely as it is part of The Times of India, which is known to accept coverage for pay. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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.