Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitGold

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BitGold[edit]

[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)

Delete No indications of notability, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, none provide significant in-depth coverage of the company, references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to originally be a draft created back in 2015 and then approved. While I find the references to establish notability, there should at least be an option to restore the page back to a version when there wasn't any concerns. Handoto (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Goldmoney, as the BitGold name is no longer being used (the website redirects to Goldmoney). The references in this article are high quality - the Guardian article ([1]) definitely meets all the requirements of WP:NCORP - it is long (about 1400 words), is almost entirely about the company, is in an independent, reliable, secondary source, and is clearly written from a point of view independent of that of the company. The Peter Koven Financial Post article ([2]) also easily meets WP:NCORP. The CNBC, Globe and Mail, and CBC sources also meet WP:NCORP, although they cover the company in less depth. This article does needs an update (why is there nothing after 2015?) and could use to less promotional, but those aren't reasons for deletion.-Mparrault (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The criteria for establishing notability goes beyond whether the *source* is an independent reliable secondary source, but whether the specific article meets the criteria for establishing notability including being intellectually independent expressing opinion/analysis and not reliant on company sources. The Guardian article relies almost exclusively on interview/quotation with Crumb, one of the founders and has no independent analysis/opinion. It also follows the format of history/Aha moment/funding/"future is bright" churnalism (a rare find, it has no posed photo) and is really just company marketing masquerading as real journalism. It is not intellectually independent and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. This Financial Post reference (oh look, posed photo!) is another example of churnalism with the same format, etc. It is not intellectually independent, relies on quotations/interview with company sources and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Guardian article is partly based on an interview with Crumb, but there has been independent analysis and fact-checking, thus meeting the criteria for independence of source. Only a small minority of the article consists of quotes from Crumb. Much of the article places the company in context. Quotes: "Essentially, in BitGold, one of the financial world’s newest innovations – digital currency – has run full tilt into one of its oldest concepts, gold as a medium of exchange." (independent analysis of the company's product), "That has some experienced analysts – many of whom have witnessed speculative mining ventures come and go in Canada – raise their eyebrows in incredulity." (information from non-company sources). Calling this article Churnalism is way off base. On another topic, I find HighKing's relentless contempt for companies and their news coverage to be a bit off-putting, especially in one who thinks they should decide which pages live and die - page deletion should be done in sorrow because a page can't meet notability requirements, not with contempt. -Mparrault (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has strong sources and information is verifiable. 207.164.152.162 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH under either name. Sources are not independent, WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and migrate to Goldmoney. Bitgold re-branded to Goldmoney almost 2 years ago. Forbes features the Bitgold to Goldmoney rebranding in this article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2016/06/16/a-cashless-society-based-on-gold/#511324442b50) Which is an independent, reliable and sufficient source. Also, the article was drafted years ago and was approved back then with no issues. The Article has solid sources in general- The CNBC and CBC sources meet WP:NCORP213.139.52.38 (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope. The Forbes article is on one of their "sites" so its a blog, doesn't meet WP:RS never mind WP:NCORP. The CNBC article is a video with the founders - fails WP:ORGIND. The CBC article the same - it even states "As Crumb explained in a promotional video..." - fails WP:ORGIND. Sources must be "intellectually independent" and those two fail to be as both rely exclusively on quotations/interviews with connected source (i.e. company officers). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with goldmoney. Seems this is a leftover article of the old brand, probably should only be a section under the new goldmoney brand. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or weak delete - per WP:PAGEDECIDE. In my view not enough in-depth coverage exists about BitGold itself (many sources are press releases or news stories I take to be routine product announcements), but a merge into goldmoney is also an option (as opposed to outright deletion, which I am not against) given that said firm is involved with BitGold.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:30, 20 June 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.