Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animoca Brands

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 10:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animoca Brands[edit]

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

Animoca Brands (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)

Promotional article, substantially written by a series of SPAs. Sourcing is press releases and funding round announcements, which don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. In a WP:BEFORE, I was somewhat surprised not to find any independent third-party RS coverage that would pass WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline; it was all press release churnalism, cryptocurrency blogs and funding announcements. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would have to be shown. David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete churnalism is not SIGCOV. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is being targeted for deletion by a user who is making false statements regarding "all" the sources used and the nature of the page. The briefest glance through the sources reveals valid citations including Reuters, VentureBeat, NASDAQ, e27, TechCrunch, CoinTelegraph, Europe & World News, and others. The nature of the content is obviously factual and informational. Additionally, during its several years as a listed company on the ASX, the company's press releases would have had to pass the strict publication requirements and review of Australia's primary stock exchange. User David Gerard is invited to cite the exact text that he describes (but never identifies) as "promotional" and specify exactly how he considers NASDAQ, Reuters, TechCrunch et al to be inappropriate sources or as he claims "blogs". --116.49.191.177 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)— 116.49.191.177 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I suggest reviewing WP:CORPDEPTH, and not claiming crypto sites as valid cites - David Gerard (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Noted. I suggest reviewing the obvious misrepresentations that David Gerard makes concerning this page. Even if a leading subject matter news source like CoinTelegraph is considered unacceptable, the page still contains other citations that are mainstream and independent (Reuters, Nasdaq, etc.), which demonstrate David Gerard's characterizations to be false. Additionally, David Gerard has still not supported his claim that this is a "promotional" article. He has been "shown wrong" as he had previously requested and is invited to contribute to (rather than persist in his efforts to delete) this article for a notable technology company.116.49.191.177 (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources fail to meet the relevant standard for the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are almost entirely about fundraising, and questioning how valid its "unicorn" status is.
You're doing that thing again - which you previously undertook to stop doing - where you post a massive, filibustering wall of text, and you loudly assert that this is significant coverage for the purposes of notability when your sources don't check out and your assertions contradict the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur. Fundraising noise doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH, and if there is a sliver of decent reporting there, we still face the problem that the current article is a pile of superficiality. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - above is an extensive list of notable WP:RS sources in which Animoca Brands is the primary focus. The list quotes the coverage itself to establish notability. Against these several independent and reliable pieces of significant coverage about Animoca Brands, user David Gerard has provided only unsupported assertions that are demonstrably false. Given his insistence on false claims, and being an individual who earns an income by writings that are highly skeptical of the crypto industry, user David Gerard is referred to WP:COI.116.49.191.177 (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notwithstanding the ongoing problematic approach taken at AfDs by Cunard, something which has been pointed out on multiple occasions in the past, there are references from analyst companies which are in-depth and contain "Independent Content" and meet WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. For example, Cunard has linked to reports by Baillieu Holst and Edison above. HighKing++ 11:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are worth a billion dollars, and get ample coverage. Dream Focus 23:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage from secondary sources. Tame (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a good amount of sources from notable and independent websites that describe the company in detail.Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Quantity over quality problems. Sources severely lack depth. Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cunard's WP:THREE + analyst reports meet CORPDEPTH and show the company meets NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 21:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — As laid out in discussions above, it seems there is a sufficient amount of direct and non-trivial coverage on the company beyond just fundraising notices. Though it's worth qualifying my !vote by noting that virtually the entire article, as it currently stands, should be rewritten to convey substantive information about the subject and its products/notable business as a whole rather than focusing primarily on financing figures... after trimming off non-RS cited material of course. If such an encyclopedic overview rooted in RS cannot be salvaged over some reasonable time, perhaps another deletion discussion ought to take place at that time. HiddenLemon // talk 18:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If all of the above references are good ones, why are they not all in the article? The effort of finding them, extracting material from them, and putting them into the AFD could have placed them into the article instead? Aoziwe (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Animoca_Brands&oldid=1060418590"