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 delete. The keep rationales are not policy-based and are unconvincing (not least because they mostly come from brand-new/mostly inactive users); in comparison the delete rationales make a convincing argument for failure to meet NCORP/CORPDEPTH. You can buy NPH's time all you want if you have the money - it doesn't make you notable unless somebody else writes about it. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC) reply

CoinFlip

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

CoinFlip (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search only links me to primary unreliable sources. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Filipinofox, that’s rude, I can google just fine, on the other hand you need to familiarize yourself with WP:NCORP feel free also to read WP:COI whilst you at it. Furthermore the cnn source is not about your organization but about bitcoin in general, if you are having troubles with sources see WP:RS. Celestina007 ( talk) 00:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Celestina007 They seem to pass NCORP just fine. Tell me how a major ad campaign with Neil Patrick Harris isn't notable? There is no WP:COI here, I'm just a bitcoin fangirl and you don't seem to think that Bitcoin.com, Coindesk.com, and Bitcoin Magazine are legitiment, independent media outlets when in fact they've held strict editorial standards since their inception in 2013-2014. Please see the new sources that I've found.
Read here according to WP:NCORP When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability.
The fact that this company is the largest and first Bitcoin ATM in the world attributes to the standard of demonstration of their effect on economies and society. How can you disagree with this qualification? I think you are being unfair.-- Filipinofox ( talk) 00:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Filipinofox, to cut the long story short how about you bring the reliable sources you claim exists to this AFD. Furthermore The fact that this company is the largest and first Bitcoin ATM in the world, allow me correct a misconception, the first x to accomplish y is not a yard stick to determine notability, I’m not seeing the “reliable sources” you say exist, perhaps you can provide to this AFD these “reliable sources” Celestina007 ( talk) 00:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it stands - a flurry of passing mentions in RSes, a WP:REFBOMBing of low-quality press-release churnalism, and I just removed a pile of crypto blogs which are absolutely not usable sources for crypto articles. Utterly fails to make WP:CORPDEPTH.
Filipinofox - what are the three most convincing sources in the article? What do you think would unambiguously make the case to someone who doesn't buy it? - David Gerard ( talk) 13:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC) reply
David Gerard :: Celestina007

Oh yes, because getting a full interview on CNBC and Fox Business are "churnalism". I don't understand your resentment here and it sounds completely biased towards crypto companies. Again I'm just a fan of crypto and noticed this company is missing from the Bitcoin ATM page.

CNBC Nasdaq Interview

Fox Business video interview Cheddar

These are credible, on the reliable sources list, and they are video interviews with live anchors on TV. But go ahead and tell me it's churnalism and not on the Rses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipinofox ( talk • contribs)

  • Keep - I don't know why their mentions would be considered "passing" or "incidental". There are several articles and interviews dedicated to them, as well as articles that mention them as relevant in their industry. Crain's also recognized them as the single fastest-growing business in Chicago. I don't understand how this is even an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrosenb2 ( talk • contribs) (not actually unsigned but the user's sig was incorrect Citing ( talk) 21:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)) reply
  • Delete for now. WP:NCORP is the useful guideline and the references focused on the company itself are press releases or announcements, interviews with the company's personnel, lists, or minor awards. If it gets substantive coverage it could be recreated. Citing ( talk) 21:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - 50M+ confirmed revenue, upward to closing to one billion dollar of Bitcoin transacted in 2020. Given that companies with far less volume, revenue, and growth have pages, what threshold is fair for an organization to be considered “noteworthy”?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yulingtsui ( talk • contribs)
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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CoinFlip&oldid=1033954913"