Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoldMoney

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoldMoney[edit]

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

Not notable

It is astonishing to me that this article has been around as long as it has. It was written by a user whose sole mission in Wikipedia was to write promotional articles about clients of the 5W Public Relations firm. That user, User:babasalichai, along with his numerous sockpuppets, has since been blocked, though new users pop up all the time.

The article is attributed entirely to the GoldMoney website; there is not a single independent source for this article. I could not find a reference to the company in any reliable source; as far as I could tell, it has been totally ignored by the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and every other reliable paper on the American continent. I has been mentioned in a few blogsites that specialize in the gold trade, generally to discuss whether the company is a fraud or not. The general consensus of these blogsites is that it is not a fraud. Ravpapa (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Finantial Times reference... that's mainstream enough.. still I agree, the article reads a bit like an ad and should be ammended. However, I don't agree about lack of notability.. check out the Digital Gold Currency entry.. they've been around for quite a while and are well known within the, admittedly specialized, DGC world. --88.128.91.156 (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above comment was by one of the avatars of babasalichai, readily identifiable by his IP and, moreso, by his idiosyncratic style; for example, "an Finantial Times". Well, there is no reference to the Financial Times anywhere in the article.

Expect to find additional votes by the same guy wearing different IPs or usernames. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability standards. --יום יפה (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Financial Times reference--a 1 June 2010 Q&A column by Turk--is at the top of the list of "References", under the footnotes.[1](June 2010). Search also turns up a number of references in Bloomberg BusinessWeek including [2](2006)(respectful interview) and [3] (2009, brief and much less flattering than the first one); and (along with lots of PR placements) some other mentions in mainstream press[4], such as [5][6][7][8][9]. Obviously this article has a history of spamming and COI, but I'd say there's a reasonable case to be made that this group (or maybe Mr. Turk individually) is a notable (perhaps WP:FRINGE-y) exponent of the goldbug crowd. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The second "delete" !voter in this discussion is a blocked sock.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the comment: You are confused, understandably. The second delete vote was by Smerdis of Tlön, who is not blocked. The following text is by the blocked sock. It carries no title, so it looks like part of the preceding Delete vote, but in fact it is a comment opposing deletion. Hope this clears things up. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the IP, but יום יפה , who did !vote delete, is a blocked sock. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Son of a gun! Thanks for pointing that out. Interesting - an article created by a sock, and its deletion supported by an opposing sock! The real editors can just go home - not much left for us to do around here! --Ravpapa (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having looked through the references provided above, I don't think this company has received enough attention from independent reliable sources to pass the notability guideline. Most of the coverage is fairly trivial; that which isn't is more about James Turk than the company. GoldMoney itself doesn't seem to be notable just yet. Robofish (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2011 (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.